rust-cuda — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.

The system holds a strong overall standing with a health score of 67%, indicating a well-structured asset that is largely reliable and maintainable. However, this stability is underpinned by significant gaps in operational visibility and security posture that require immediate attention to protect business continuity.

The codebase represents a medium-sized investment, comprising over 55,000 lines of production logic with a modest rebuild cost of approximately €77,000. This relatively low replacement value means the organization can afford to invest in hardening the current system rather than considering a full rewrite. The architecture is exceptionally robust, and the code itself is clean, suggesting that the core business logic is sound and not burdened by technical debt in its structure.

The primary risk lies in the lack of production observability. Without comprehensive structured logging across all modules, the team operates blind when issues arise, leading to prolonged outages and higher incident response costs. This opacity directly threatens delivery speed and customer trust, as diagnosing problems becomes a manual, time-consuming exercise rather than a data-driven process. Addressing this gap is the highest-leverage action available, as it unlocks the ability to detect and resolve issues before they impact users.

A secondary concern is the security posture, which sits at 62%. While no critical vulnerabilities were confirmed, the absence of automated dependency management and unclear release protections exposes the system to supply chain risks and potential deployment errors. This creates a security exposure that could lead to compliance issues or data breaches if left unaddressed. The strength of the underlying architecture and code health provides a solid foundation, but these operational and security controls are the weak links that could undermine the system's reliability.

Focus first on extending structured logging to all runnable modules. This single step will dramatically improve diagnostic capability, reducing mean time to resolution and enhancing overall system trust. Once visibility is established, implement automated dependency updates and tighten release protections to secure the delivery pipeline. This approach maximizes protection for the business with minimal effort, leveraging the system's inherent strengths while plugging its most critical operational gaps.

Code Health 86% Strong Architecture 98% ★ Exemplary Maturity 65% Adequate · gated by D34 Readiness 64% Strong Security 62% Adequate · gated by D31, D36

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.

Security 62% · 47% weightReadiness 64% · 26% weightMaturity 65% · 14% weightCode Health 86% · 8% weightArchitecture 98% · 4% weight

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

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (19+)

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

D5 · Off the main sequence: cust_raw
D5 · Off the main sequence: blastoff
D6 · Low cohesion: CudaBuilder (LCOM4 15) crates/cuda_builder/src/lib.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CodegenCx (LCOM4 14) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: CudnnContext (LCOM4 4) crates/cudnn/src/context.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: Builder (LCOM4 4) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs
D22 · Inconsistent resource management pattern: Some types use a static method `drop(ctx: Self)` (Cublas, Cudnn, Context, Event, ArrayObject) while others rely on standard Rust `Drop` trait or do not expose a manual drop method in the signature list. While `drop` as a static method is a valid pattern for explicit resource release, the inconsistency lies in the fact that `CudaBuilder` and `GpuBuffer`/`GpuBox` do not show a `drop` method, implying reliance on RAII, whereas the context/event types require explicit manual cleanup. This mixes RAII and manual memory management paradigms without a clear, consistent boundary.
D22 · Inconsistent API for retrieving version information. `CublasContext` and `CudnnContext` return a tuple `(u32, u32, u32)` directly. `Context` and `UnownedContext` return a `CudaResult` wrapping an opaque or unspecified type (likely requiring further calls). `CudaApiVersion` uses a builder-like or accessor pattern (`get`, `major`, `minor`). This forces users to handle versioning differently depending on which context or API they are querying.
D22 · Inconsistent handling of stream context. `CublasContext` has a `with_stream` method that takes a closure, suggesting a scoped stream execution, but also has `set_stream` (implied by Cudnn having it, though Cublas doesn't explicitly list `set_stream` in the provided snippet, it has `with_stream`). More critically, `CudnnContext` has `set_stream` but no `with_stream`. This creates an inconsistency in how users manage stream scope: one library encourages scoped execution via closures, the other uses imperative state setting.
D22 · Redundant API surface due to `_strided` suffix duplication. Every BLAS Level 1 operation has a non-strided version (assuming contiguous data) and a `_strided` version. While this mirrors the underlying cuBLAS API, it creates a large, repetitive public surface. More importantly, the naming convention `_strided` is specific to cuBLAS terminology. A more idiomatic Rust API might use a single method with an optional stride parameter or a separate `Strided` trait/struct, rather than duplicating every single function name.
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED
D31 · REDACTED

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €26,000–€130,000

Cost to rebuild	€26,000–€130,000 (0.3–0.8 person-years (428–1,359 h), ~1–2 engineers)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.9× (at 67% 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 ~0.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€77,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 62% — 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 0.9× 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 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with mod.rs, array.rs, enums.rs.

+2.5 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.

+4.4 pts · Medium effort · Observability

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.

+4.4 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Medium asset (~0.5 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 62%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.5 person-years rebuild (55,717 LoC) · weakest lens: Security 62%

→ Direct remediation budget at Security 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: Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.

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.)

208 modules, 276 dependencies. 3 dependency cycles across 11 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 168 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 blastoff.error	2 blastoff.private	3 cuda_std.rt	4 cudnn.backend.descriptor	5 cudnn.math_type	6 cudnn.nan_propagation	7 cust.device	8 cust_core._hidden	13 cudnn.data_type	14 cudnn.reduction.reduction_descriptor	15 cudnn.rnn.rnn_descriptor	16 cust.context.legacy	17 cust.memory.device	18 cust.memory.pointer	20 cudnn.rnn.rnn_data_descriptor	21 cust.context	22 cust.memory	23 cust.module	24 cudnn.context	25 cust.function	26 cust.memory.device.device_box	27 cust.memory.device.device_slice	29 rustc_codegen_nvvm	30 rustc_codegen_nvvm.llvm	32 cust.memory.device.device_buffer	33 rustc_codegen_nvvm.llvm.debuginfo	34 optix.acceleration	36 rustc_codegen_nvvm.debug_info.metadata.type_map	37 rustc_codegen_nvvm.debug_info	38 rustc_codegen_nvvm.context	39 rustc_codegen_nvvm.builder
1 blastoff.error
2 blastoff.private
3 cuda_std.rt
4 cudnn.backend.descriptor
5 cudnn.math_type
6 cudnn.nan_propagation
7 cust.device
8 cust_core._hidden
9 blastoff		4						2
10 cudnn.backend.conv_cfg				1
11 cudnn.backend.pointwise_cfg				1		1
12 cudnn.backend.tensor				1
13 cudnn.data_type		5						1
14 cudnn.reduction.reduction_descriptor						1
15 cudnn.rnn.rnn_descriptor					1	1
16 cust.context.legacy		2					1									2
17 cust.memory.device		2	1
18 cust.memory.pointer								2
19 cudnn.backend									1
20 cudnn.rnn.rnn_data_descriptor		1							1
21 cust.context		2					1					5
22 cust.memory		2												3
23 cust.module		1											1	1
24 cudnn.context			1							1	1				1
25 cust.function			4									2						1
26 cust.memory.device.device_box		1	1										2	1			2
27 cust.memory.device.device_slice		1	1										2	1			1								1
28 cust.memory.unified		3	1				1							4			2
29 rustc_codegen_nvvm												2						4
30 rustc_codegen_nvvm.llvm												1						1								4					1
31 cudnn.backend.graph				1															2
32 cust.memory.device.device_buffer		1	1											1			2					1
33 rustc_codegen_nvvm.llvm.debuginfo																								1
34 optix.acceleration			3					4						2							1	6			3
35 optix.denoiser			1											1							1				1
36 rustc_codegen_nvvm.debug_info.metadata.type_map																										1				2
37 rustc_codegen_nvvm.debug_info												1						1								1		1		1
38 rustc_codegen_nvvm.context												1						2		1			1	3			1		2
39 rustc_codegen_nvvm.builder																								2			1			1
40 rustc_codegen_nvvm.nvvm	1											1						3												1

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

At a glance — Code Health · 86% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 6.7 D3 · Rust God Classes 8.4 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.6 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.7

The Bad

D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 6.0

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 9.2 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.5 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 9.3 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Bad

D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 6.0

At a glance — Maturity · 65% · Adequate · gated by D34 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 9.6 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 7.0 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 4.5 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0

The Ugly

D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 3.2

At a glance — Readiness · 64% · Strong ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 8.1 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Rust License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P2 · Repo Observability 5.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0

At a glance — Security · 62% · Adequate · gated by D31, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 7.9 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0

The Bad

D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 6.0

The Ugly

D31 · Rust IaC & Container Security 3.5 D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

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
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	32	High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection	23	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	11	Medium

Roadmap

First, extend structured logging across all runnable modules to ensure full production diagnosability, and enable dependency review tooling to strengthen security and performance. Next, verify that deployment approval gates are properly configured or use draft releases to prevent bad builds from reaching users. Finally, improve onboarding by adding a quick-start section to the README and documenting key architectural decisions in a dedicated, discoverable location.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with mod.rs, array.rs, enums.rs.	+2.5 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.	+4.4 pts	Medium	Observability
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.	+4.4 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.	+4.4 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+4.0 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+4.0 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2).	+1.3 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.	+1.1 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 71 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 7% slop · 30% mixed · 63% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.4	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.4	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.4	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.4	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.5	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.5	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium advisory (unmaintained): REDACTED
crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: HackComment
crates/cust/src/texture.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
crates/cuda_builder/src/lib.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: HackComment
crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/const_ty.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
crates/optix/src/acceleration.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 — 37

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 — 224

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 — 36

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. 35 of 40 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 40 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D21D22D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D43AX10AX3AX4AX8AX9M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6

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, 257 of 297 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 01a0f02f-91b9-799e-b178-dc2a81a0a1a8.

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, 30 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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — 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 dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a REDACTED) is simply not read here yet.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
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.
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.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

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

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

13 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was CodegenCx::build_intrinsics_map at 124. A further 8 function(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being OptixError::to_raw at 37 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 3 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: crates/optix/src/error.rs (OptixError::to_raw at 37), crates/cudnn/src/error.rs (CudnnError::into_raw at 18), crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/llvm.rs (TypeKind::to_generic 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.

Builder::codegen_intrinsic_call (cyclomatic 89) · ×3crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:237

Lexer::next_token (cyclomatic 51) · ×3crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:101

CodegenCx::build_intrinsics_map (cyclomatic 124)crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ctx_intrinsics.rs:15

ResourceViewFormat::from_array_format (cyclomatic 29)crates/cust/src/texture.rs:217

rustc_codegen_nvvm::debug_info::metadata::type_di_node (cyclomatic 21)crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:429

+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 3 Builder finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with intrinsic.rs, asm.rs, builder.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Lexer finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with lexer.rs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CodegenCx finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ctx_intrinsics.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.0 / 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 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

22 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was CodegenCx::build_intrinsics_map at 125.

CodegenCx::build_intrinsics_map (cognitive 125) · ×5crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ctx_intrinsics.rs:15

Builder::codegen_intrinsic_call (cognitive 76) · ×4crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:237

Lexer::number (cognitive 31) · ×3crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:287

PtxContent::extract_function_name (cognitive 24) · ×2crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ptx_filter.rs:200

rustc_codegen_nvvm::link::codegen_into_ptx_file (cognitive 16) · ×2crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/link.rs:235

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

What to do

Resolve the 5 CodegenCx finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with context.rs (2), ctx_intrinsics.rs, const_ty.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Builder finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with intrinsic.rs (2), asm.rs, builder.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Lexer finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with lexer.rs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 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 Classes8.4 / 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

FileTooLong: src/llvm.rs · ×10crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/llvm.rs

MethodTooLong: Builder.codegen_intrinsic_call · ×8crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:237

TooManyMethods: Builder · ×4crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:44

ClassTooLong: Builder · ×2crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:44

What to do

Resolve the 10 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with llvm.rs, intrinsics.rs, builder.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 8 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with lexer.rs (2), intrinsic.rs, ctx_intrinsics.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with context.rs (3), builder.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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 48 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

48 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×10crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1302

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×5crates/cudnn/src/activation/mod.rs:152

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×4crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs:757

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1578

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×3crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs:759

+ 17 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 10 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with legacy.rs (4), device_box.rs (4), acceleration.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with mod.rs, conv_bwd_data.rs, legacy.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with array.rs, builder.rs, allocator.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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 · Coupling9.2 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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 9.2 / 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; 2 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 15 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: cust_raw · ×2

What to do

Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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)9.5 / 10Stronggated by 4 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

4 of 88 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: CudaBuilder (LCOM4 15) · ×4crates/cuda_builder/src/lib.rs:60

What to do

Resolve the 4 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with context.rs (2), lib.rs, builder.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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 Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

126 test methods: 126 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 126 `#[test]` function(s) across 30 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 0 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?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~8.9~~ 8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 90% · ceiling Verified

21 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. 54 of 60 direct crates were graded against crates.io (0 not published there, 6 not resolved by a committed REDACTED). Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.

Outdated: anyhow · ×21

What to do

Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 420 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

6 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is crates/cudnn/src/error.rs. Counted over 147 of the 234 production source files in this repository: 85 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 2 have no attributable history left to measure.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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 74 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

74 deducted task-comment markers across 55717 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 · ×35crates/cuda_std/src/ptr.rs:25

FixmeComment · ×28crates/cuda_std/src/lib.rs:84

HackComment · ×11crates/cuda_builder/src/lib.rs:816

What to do

Resolve the 35 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with intrinsic.rs (6), texture.rs (3), context.rs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (35 warning-level).
Resolve the 28 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with builder.rs (5), metadata.rs (4), main.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (28 warning-level).
Resolve the 11 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with main.rs (5), lib.rs, lexer.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 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

The repository's root README gives a strong overview (the Rust CUDA project, an ecosystem of libraries/tools for GPU code in Rust, the reboot status, license, contribution guidance) plus links to the official Rust-GPU documentation and a detailed README for each subdirectory. The examples/READMEs document their own directories (vector addition, GEMM, 128-bit demo, OptiX path tracer), while tests/compiletests/README documents compile tests, and guide/src/nvvm/README is an internal toolkit doc covering CUDA basics with assumed rustc/LLVM knowledge. The READMEs are well-structured but the architecture/design docs and one guide section fall below the scope threshold.

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The repository's root README gives a strong overview (the Rust CUDA project, an ecosystem of libraries/tools for GPU code in Rust, the reboot status, license, contribution guidance) plus links to the official Rust-GPU documentation and a detailed README for each subdirectory. The examples/READMEs document their own directories (vector addition, GEMM, 128-bit demo, OptiX path tracer), while tests/compiletests/README documents compile tests, and guide/src/nvvm/README is an internal toolkit doc covering CUDA basics with assumed rustc/LLVM knowledge. The READMEs are well-structured but the architecture/design docs and one guide section fall below the scope threshold.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.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 ConsistencyAdequate◐ 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 Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

4 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 269 exposed types.

Inconsistent resource management pattern: Some types use a static method `drop(ctx: Self)` (Cublas, Cudnn, Context, Event, ArrayObject) while others rely on standard Rust `Drop` trait or do not expose a manual drop method in the signature list. While `drop` as a static method is a valid pattern for explicit resource release, the inconsistency lies in the fact that `CudaBuilder` and `GpuBuffer`/`GpuBox` do not show a `drop` method, implying reliance on RAII, whereas the context/event types require explicit manual cleanup. This mixes RAII and manual memory management paradigms without a clear, consistent boundary.

Inconsistent API for retrieving version information. `CublasContext` and `CudnnContext` return a tuple `(u32, u32, u32)` directly. `Context` and `UnownedContext` return a `CudaResult` wrapping an opaque or unspecified type (likely requiring further calls). `CudaApiVersion` uses a builder-like or accessor pattern (`get`, `major`, `minor`). This forces users to handle versioning differently depending on which context or API they are querying.

Inconsistent handling of stream context. `CublasContext` has a `with_stream` method that takes a closure, suggesting a scoped stream execution, but also has `set_stream` (implied by Cudnn having it, though Cublas doesn't explicitly list `set_stream` in the provided snippet, it has `with_stream`). More critically, `CudnnContext` has `set_stream` but no `with_stream`. This creates an inconsistency in how users manage stream scope: one library encourages scoped execution via closures, the other uses imperative state setting.

Redundant API surface due to `_strided` suffix duplication. Every BLAS Level 1 operation has a non-strided version (assuming contiguous data) and a `_strided` version. While this mirrors the underlying cuBLAS API, it creates a large, repetitive public surface. More importantly, the naming convention `_strided` is specific to cuBLAS terminology. A more idiomatic Rust API might use a single method with an optional stride parameter or a separate `Strided` trait/struct, rather than duplicating every single function name.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent resource management pattern finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent API for retrieving version information. `CublasContext` and… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent handling of stream context. `CublasContext` has a… 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 Cohesion9.3 / 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

Split crates/cudnn

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

23 finding(s): 0 critical, 23 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 20 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 1 file(s) — `crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/llvm.rs` (line 447, line 448, line 454, …) — 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 3 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 20 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 (20 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 Vulnerabilities7.9 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

11 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 11 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 5 Medium advisory (unsound) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Medium vulnerability 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 Security3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

32 finding(s): 0 critical, 14 high, 18 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 18 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (18). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 warning-level).
Resolve the 14 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (14). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness3.2 / 10Weak✓ 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 3.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

102 of 149 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is crates/cudnn/src/convolution/mod.rs. Counted over 149 of the 234 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Most significant orphaned file · ×3crates/cudnn/src/convolution/mod.rs

Concentrated knowledge decay

What to do

Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with mod.rs, array.rs, enums.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Concentrated knowledge decay finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

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

What to do

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)4.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 40 of 41 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & 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 · Observability5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Only 2/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `crates/cudnn-sys`, `crates/cust_raw`, `crates/optix-sys`, `xtask`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

What to do

The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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	86%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	98%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Maturity	65%	Adequate — gated by D34	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	64%	Strong	Solid.
Security	62%	Adequate — gated by D31, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.

Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

X7 Silent fallback defaults — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

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

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

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

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

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

AC1 Text alternatives — Frontend below the scale floor (4 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC2 Forms & labels — Frontend below the scale floor (4 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC3 Page structure — Frontend below the scale floor (4 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — Frontend below the scale floor (4 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC5 ARIA correctness — Frontend below the scale floor (4 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — Frontend below the scale floor (4 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC7 A11y enforcement — Frontend below the scale floor (4 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
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
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; 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 — ~8062 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
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.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (33 value object(s))
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — 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'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Python, Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `#[bench]`, criterion's `bench_function`/`bench_with_input`, `#[divan::bench]` or `#[library_benchmark]` in any `.rs` file, or criterion, divan, iai or a `[[bench]]` target in a Cargo.toml, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
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.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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 — 37 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

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

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×14

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED

Serious — 224 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×35

TodoComment crates/cuda_std/src/ptr.rs:25 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): Investigate subpar codegen for this function. It seems nvcc implements this not using — 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 crates/cuda_std/src/rt/sys.rs:13 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): We should probably create a common 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 crates/cust/src/texture.rs:331 — // TODO: validate the soundness of linear and pitch2, they require some pointer to memory, but — 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 crates/cust/src/texture.rs:382 — // TODO: evaluate if its possible to cause UB by making a raw descriptor with an invalid array handle. — 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 crates/cust/src/texture.rs:402 — // used into_array. TODO: figure out a good way to deal with array ownership issues. — 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 crates/cust/src/link.rs:37 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): Support PTX compiler options and decide whether we should expose — 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 crates/cust/src/function.rs:432 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): Figure out a way to safely wrap a rust closure to pass it to cuda for blockSizeToDynamicSMemSize. — 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 crates/cust/src/event.rs:13 — // TODO: I'm not sure that these events are/can be safe by Rust's model of safety; they inherently — 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 crates/cust/src/memory/pointer.rs:81 — // TODO (AL): do we even want this? — 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 crates/optix/src/denoiser.rs:245 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): provide a way to do the denoising in-place (same input and output buffer). — 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 crates/optix/src/denoiser.rs:539 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): maybe change this to a boxed GpuBuffer? — 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 crates/optix/src/context.rs:71 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): expose device context options — 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 crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1011 — // TODO (AL): Do some sanity checking on the values 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 crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1271 — // TODO (AL): do some sanity checking on the slice lengths 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 crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1923 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): ask al what this is for :p — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/link.rs:301 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): maybe include the nvvm log with this fatal error — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/lib.rs:385 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): does shouldDiscardNames affect NVVM at all? — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:32 — // TODO(@LegNeato): LLVM 7.1 doesn't have llvm.ctlz.i128/llvm.cttz.i128 — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:42 — // TODO(@LegNeato): LLVM 7.1 doesn't have llvm.ctlz.i128/llvm.cttz.i128 — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:52 — // TODO(@LegNeato): LLVM 7.1 doesn't have llvm.ctpop.i128 — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:57 — // TODO(@LegNeato): LLVM 7.1 doesn't have llvm.bswap.i128 (added in LLVM 9.0) — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:63 — // TODO(@LegNeato): LLVM 7.1 doesn't have llvm.bitreverse.i128 — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:68 — // TODO(@LegNeato): LLVM 7.1 doesn't have llvm.fshl.i128/llvm.fshr.i128 — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/init.rs:38 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): We override the meaning of llvm-args to pass our own nvvm args, — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs:421 — // TODO(RDambrosio016): we should probably still generate accurate calling conv for functions — 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.
+ 10 more in this group — see findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×28

FixmeComment crates/cuda_std/src/lib.rs:84 — // FIXME(RDambrosio016): For some very odd reason, this function causes an InvalidAddress error when called, — 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 crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_buffer.rs:54 — // FIXME (AL): Do we /really/ want to allow creating an invalid buffer? — 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 crates/optix/src/pipeline.rs:489 — /// FIXME (AL): make this sound by storing module lifetimes 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.
FixmeComment crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ty.rs:583 — // FIXME(eddyb) producing readable type names for trait objects can result — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/lib.rs:123 — // FIXME If we can use the default metadata loader in the LLVM backend — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:572 — // FIXME: could be `trunc nuw`, even for signed. — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs:282 — // FIXME(@LegNeato) ideally we keep track of what we have put into — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/const_ty.rs:252 — // FIXME: Use LLVMGetPoision when possible. — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:240 — // FIXME: get rid of this nonsense once we are past LLVM 7 and don't have — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:615 — // FIXME: Merge with the `else` below? — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:973 — // FIXME(FractalFir): Once again, a bunch of nosense to make the LLVM typed pointers happy. — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:1604 — /// FIXME(FractalFir): this code assumess all pointers are generic. Adjust it once we support address spaces. — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:1624 — // **ASSUMING** only the current thread can access thread-local memory. (FIXME: is this sound?) — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:204 — // FIXME: If this wide pointer is a `Box` then we don't want to use its — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:509 — // FIXME(mw): Cache this via a regular UniqueTypeId instead of an extra field in the debug context. — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:520 — // FIXME: the name `<recur_type>` does not fit the naming scheme — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:523 — // FIXME: it might make sense to use an actual pointer type 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.
FixmeComment crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/create_scope_map.rs:34 — // FIXME(eddyb) take into account that arguments always have debuginfo, — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/create_scope_map.rs:120 — // FIXME(eddyb) this would be `self.monomorphize(&callee)` — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata/enums.rs:215 — // FIXME: This is problematic because just a number is not a valid identifier. — 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 crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata/enums.rs:559 — // FIXME: pass all 128 bits with newer LLVM API. — 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 tests/compiletests/src/main.rs:192 — // FIXME(eddyb) do we need this? shouldn't `compiletest` be independent? — 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 tests/compiletests/src/main.rs:267 — // FIXME(eddyb) `missing_count` should always be `0` anyway. — 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 tests/compiletests/src/main.rs:268 — // FIXME(eddyb) use `--message-format=json-render-diagnostics` to — 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 tests/compiletests/src/main.rs:377 — // FIXME(eddyb) expose most of these from `cuda-builder`. — 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.
+ 3 more in this group — see findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×18

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

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×11

HackComment crates/cuda_builder/src/lib.rs:816 — // HACK(fee1-dead): didn't seem like there was a better way to disable f16/f128s, the `target_config`` did not work for some reason. — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:26 — // hack used for dealing with .0 modifiers being either options or — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/build.rs:425 — // hack around this by replacing the host triple with the target and pray — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ty.rs:507 — // HACK(eddyb) special-case fat pointers until LLVM removes — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/init.rs:100 — // HACK(eddyb) LLVM inserts `llvm.assume` calls to preserve align attributes — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/abi.rs:503 — // HACK(RDambrosio016): We sometimes lie to rustc with return values and give it a bitcast — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment tests/compiletests/src/main.rs:68 — // HACK(eddyb) force `compiletest` to pass `ui/...` relative paths to `rustc`, — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment tests/compiletests/src/main.rs:146 — // HACK(eddyb) in order to allow *some* tests to have separate output — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment tests/compiletests/src/main.rs:388 — // HACK(eddyb) this is the same configuration that we test with, and — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment tests/compiletests/src/main.rs:392 — // HACK(eddyb) we need this for `core::fmt::rt::Argument::new_*` calls — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment tests/compiletests/src/main.rs:395 — // HACK(eddyb) avoid ever reusing instantiations from `compiler_builtins` — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×10

FileTooLong: src/llvm.rs crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/llvm.rs — FileTooLong — 1868 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1368 over it, 3.74× 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.
FileTooLong: atomic/intrinsics.rs crates/cuda_std/src/atomic/intrinsics.rs — FileTooLong — 1142 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 642 over it, 2.28× 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.
FileTooLong: src/builder.rs crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs — FileTooLong — 1115 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 94% of them inside a single declaration: Builder (15 blocks, 44-1696). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 615 over it, 2.23× 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/acceleration.rs crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs — FileTooLong — 1028 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 528 over it, 2.06× 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.
FileTooLong: debug_info/metadata.rs crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs — FileTooLong — 939 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 439 over it, 1.88× 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.
FileTooLong: src/intrinsic.rs crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs — FileTooLong — 679 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 75% of them inside a single declaration: Builder (236-935). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 179 over it, 1.36× 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: raw/level1.rs crates/blastoff/src/raw/level1.rs — FileTooLong — 581 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 81 over it, 1.16× 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.
FileTooLong: metadata/enums.rs crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata/enums.rs — FileTooLong — 512 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 12 over it, 1.02× 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.
FileTooLong: src/context.rs crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs — FileTooLong — 506 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 80% of them inside a single declaration: CodegenCx (12 blocks, 48-815). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.01× 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/abi.rs crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/abi.rs — FileTooLong — 503 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 3 over it, 1.01× 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.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1302 — crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1302-1311 | crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1390-1399 — 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 (10 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:534 — crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:534-543 | crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs:350-359 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs` and `crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:642 — crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:642-651 | crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs:458-467 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs` and `crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:765 — crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:765-774 | crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs:582-591 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs` and `crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_box.rs:433 — crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_box.rs:433-442 | crates/cust/src/module.rs:497-506 — 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 (10 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_box.rs:444 — crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_box.rs:444-453 | crates/cust/src/module.rs:508-517 — 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 (10 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:374 — crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:374-383 | crates/cust/src/stream.rs:341-351 — 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 (10 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_box.rs:126 — crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_box.rs:126-135 | crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_buffer.rs:118-127 — 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 (10 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_box.rs:244 — crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_box.rs:244-253 | crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:85-94 — 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 (10 lines × 2) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/const_ty.rs:103 — crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/const_ty.rs:103-112 | crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ty.rs:76-85 — 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.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×8

MethodTooLong: Builder.codegen_intrinsic_call crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:237 — MethodTooLong — codegen_intrinsic_call runs 420 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 320 over it, 4.20× 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: CodegenCx.build_intrinsics_map crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ctx_intrinsics.rs:15 — MethodTooLong — build_intrinsics_map runs 274 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 174 over it, 2.74× 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: Builder.codegen_inline_asm crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/asm.rs:24 — MethodTooLong — codegen_inline_asm runs 139 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 39 over it, 1.39× 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: CodegenCx.dbg_scope_fn crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/mod.rs:265 — MethodTooLong — dbg_scope_fn runs 125 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 25 over it, 1.25× 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: Lexer.next_token crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:101 — MethodTooLong — next_token runs 123 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 23 over it, 1.23× 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: Denoiser.invoke crates/optix/src/denoiser.rs:260 — MethodTooLong — invoke runs 108 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 8 over it, 1.08× 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: ArrayObject.from_descriptor crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs:322 — MethodTooLong — from_descriptor runs 107 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 7 over it, 1.07× 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: Lexer.number crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:287 — MethodTooLong — number runs 107 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 7 over it, 1.07× 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CodegenCx · ×5

CodegenCx::build_intrinsics_map (cognitive 125) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ctx_intrinsics.rs:15 — CodegenCx::build_intrinsics_map has cognitive complexity 125 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 122 (124 pts), if/else 1 (nesting depth added 2). 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.
CodegenCx::get_fn (cognitive 49) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs:520 — CodegenCx::get_fn has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (48 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 29). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
CodegenCx::scalar_to_backend (cognitive 32) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/const_ty.rs:128 — CodegenCx::scalar_to_backend has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (24 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (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.
CodegenCx::dbg_scope_fn (cognitive 21) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/mod.rs:265 — CodegenCx::dbg_scope_fn has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (19 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function items inside it that branch (get_containing_scope, get_template_parameters, get_function_signature). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
CodegenCx::static_addrspace (cognitive 19) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs:261 — CodegenCx::static_addrspace has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unsound) · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) crates/cudnn/src/activation/mod.rs:152 — crates/cudnn/src/activation/mod.rs:152-158 | crates/cudnn/src/pooling/mod.rs:118-124 — 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 (7 lines × 2) crates/cudnn/src/backend/conv_bwd_data.rs:57 — crates/cudnn/src/backend/conv_bwd_data.rs:57-63 | crates/cudnn/src/backend/conv_bwd_filter.rs:56-62 — 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 (7 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:588 — crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:588-594 | crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs:404-410 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs` and `crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) crates/blastoff/src/error.rs:26 — crates/blastoff/src/error.rs:26-32 | crates/cudnn/src/error.rs:106-112 — 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 (7 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/surface.rs:66 — crates/cust/src/surface.rs:66-72 | crates/cust/src/texture.rs:474-480 — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Builder · ×4

Builder::codegen_intrinsic_call (cognitive 76) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:237 — Builder::codegen_intrinsic_call has cognitive complexity 76 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 29 (50 pts), match/switch 11 (24 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.
Builder::codegen_inline_asm (cognitive 59) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/asm.rs:24 — Builder::codegen_inline_asm has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (37 pts), match/switch 6 (14 pts), loops 5 (8 pts) (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.
Builder::load_operand (cognitive 27) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:559 — Builder::load_operand has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (24 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to one function item inside it that branches. 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.
Builder::codegen_llvm_intrinsic_call (cognitive 19) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:810 — Builder::codegen_llvm_intrinsic_call has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), loops 2 (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.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×4

TooManyMethods: Builder crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:44 — TooManyMethods — 47 methods, declared across 2 files: builder/emulate_i128.rs (34), src/builder.rs (13). The bar is 30 methods; this is 17 over it, 1.57× 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: CodegenCx crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs:48 — TooManyMethods — 46 methods, declared across 5 files: src/ty.rs (21), src/context.rs (16), src/consts.rs (6), src/ctx_intrinsics.rs (2), +1 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 16 over it, 1.53× 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: CudnnContext crates/cudnn/src/context.rs:27 — TooManyMethods — 42 methods, declared across 10 files: convolution/mod.rs (10), dropout/mod.rs (5), op/mod.rs (5), rnn/mod.rs (5), +6 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 12 over it, 1.40× 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: CublasContext crates/blastoff/src/context.rs:75 — TooManyMethods — 39 methods, declared across 3 files: src/level1.rs (27), src/context.rs (11), src/level3.rs (1). The bar is 30 methods; this is 9 over it, 1.30× 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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs:757 — crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs:757-762 | crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs:845-850 — 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) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:512 — crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:512-517 | crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:525-530 — 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) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/allocator.rs:60 — crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/allocator.rs:60-65 | crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/allocator.rs:68-73 — 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) crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:364 — crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:364-369 | crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:385-390 — 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 · ×4

Low cohesion: CudaBuilder (LCOM4 15) crates/cuda_builder/src/lib.rs:60 — CudaBuilder's methods fall into 15 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 15 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: CodegenCx (LCOM4 14) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs:48 — CodegenCx's methods fall into 14 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 14 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: CudnnContext (LCOM4 4) crates/cudnn/src/context.rs:27 — CudnnContext'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: Builder (LCOM4 4) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:44 — Builder'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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Builder · ×3

Builder::codegen_intrinsic_call (cyclomatic 89) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/intrinsic.rs:237 — Builder::codegen_intrinsic_call has cyclomatic complexity 89 (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.
Builder::codegen_inline_asm (cyclomatic 33) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/asm.rs:24 — Builder::codegen_inline_asm 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.
Builder::load_operand (cyclomatic 19) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:559 — Builder::load_operand has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: Builder::checked_binop (cyclomatic 36) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Lexer · ×3

Lexer::next_token (cyclomatic 51) crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:101 — Lexer::next_token has cyclomatic complexity 51 (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.
Lexer::number (cyclomatic 23) crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:287 — Lexer::number 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.
Lexer::dot (cyclomatic 17) crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:463 — Lexer::dot 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 · Lexer · ×3

Lexer::number (cognitive 31) crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:287 — Lexer::number has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), loops 3 (8 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.
Lexer::dot (cognitive 28) crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:463 — Lexer::dot has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (23 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 1 (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.
Lexer::next_token (cognitive 26) crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:101 — Lexer::next_token has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 4 (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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1578 — crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1578-1588 | crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1596-1606 — 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) crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1659 — crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1659-1669 | crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1692-1702 — 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) crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:613 — crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:613-623 | crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs:429-439 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs` and `crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs:759 — crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs:759-766 | crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs:804-811 — 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) crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:562 — crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:562-569 | crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs:378-385 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs` and `crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/nvvm.rs:283 — crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/nvvm.rs:283-290 | crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/nvvm.rs:307-314 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PtxContent · ×2

PtxContent::extract_function_name (cognitive 24) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ptx_filter.rs:200 — PtxContent::extract_function_name has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), boolean chains 7, match/switch 1 (2 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.
PtxContent::format (cognitive 18) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ptx_filter.rs:269 — PtxContent::format has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 5 (12 pts), if/else 3 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · rustc_codegen_nvvm · ×2

rustc_codegen_nvvm::link::codegen_into_ptx_file (cognitive 16) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/link.rs:235 — rustc_codegen_nvvm::link::codegen_into_ptx_file has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (7 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 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.
rustc_codegen_nvvm::allocator::codegen (cognitive 16) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/allocator.rs:12 — rustc_codegen_nvvm::allocator::codegen has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 3 (4 pts) (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.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×2

ClassTooLong: Builder crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/builder.rs:44 — ClassTooLong — 1052 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 47 methods, 15 blocks, lines 44-1696. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 652 over it, 2.63× 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: CodegenCx crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs:48 — ClassTooLong — 404 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 46 methods, 12 blocks, lines 48-815. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 4 over it, 1.01× 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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:1059 — crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:1059-1072 | crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata/enums.rs:171-184 — 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 (14 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:674 — crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:674-687 | crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs:490-503 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs` and `crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1836 — crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1836-1847 | crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1985-1996 — 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 (12 lines × 2) crates/optix/src/pipeline.rs:51 — crates/optix/src/pipeline.rs:51-62 | crates/optix/src/pipeline.rs:588-599 — 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 × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) crates/blastoff/src/level1.rs:317 — crates/blastoff/src/level1.rs:317-325 | crates/blastoff/src/level1.rs:393-401 | crates/blastoff/src/level1.rs:441-449 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:296 — crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:296-304 | crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:428-436 | crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs:251-259 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs` and `crates/cust/src/context/mod.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) crates/nvvm/src/lib.rs:679 — crates/nvvm/src/lib.rs:679-683 | crates/nvvm/src/lib.rs:765-769 — 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) crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_box.rs:352 — crates/cust/src/memory/device/device_box.rs:352-356 | crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:170-174 — 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 (9 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/memory/locked/locked_buffer.rs:39 — crates/cust/src/memory/locked/locked_buffer.rs:39-47 | crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:361-369 — 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 (9 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/memory/locked/locked_buffer.rs:65 — crates/cust/src/memory/locked/locked_buffer.rs:65-73 | crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:387-395 — 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 (13 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/surface.rs:23 — crates/cust/src/surface.rs:23-35 | crates/cust/src/texture.rs:408-420 — 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) crates/cuda_std/src/warp.rs:167 — crates/cuda_std/src/warp.rs:167-179 | crates/cuda_std/src/warp.rs:202-214 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2

Off the main sequence: cust_raw — cust_raw: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 7 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: blastoff — blastoff: abstractness 0.83, instability 1.00, distance 0.83 — zone of uselessness — abstract and unstable, so it's likely unused.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CodegenCx · ×1

CodegenCx::build_intrinsics_map (cyclomatic 124) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ctx_intrinsics.rs:15 — CodegenCx::build_intrinsics_map has cyclomatic complexity 124 (threshold 15). 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ResourceViewFormat · ×1

ResourceViewFormat::from_array_format (cyclomatic 29) crates/cust/src/texture.rs:217 — ResourceViewFormat::from_array_format has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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 · rustc_codegen_nvvm · ×1

rustc_codegen_nvvm::debug_info::metadata::type_di_node (cyclomatic 21) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:429 — rustc_codegen_nvvm::debug_info::metadata::type_di_node has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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 · NvvmOption · ×1

NvvmOption::from_str (cyclomatic 20) crates/nvvm/src/lib.rs:186 — NvvmOption::from_str 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: NvvmArch::from_str (cyclomatic 36) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · cuda_builder · ×1

cuda_builder::invoke_rustc (cyclomatic 19) crates/cuda_builder/src/lib.rs:700 — cuda_builder::invoke_rustc has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PtxContent · ×1

PtxContent::extract_function_name (cyclomatic 17) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/ptx_filter.rs:200 — PtxContent::extract_function_name has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CodegenArgs · ×1

CodegenArgs::parse (cyclomatic 16) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs:663 — CodegenArgs::parse has cyclomatic complexity 16 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ArrayObject · ×1

ArrayObject::from_descriptor (cognitive 29) crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs:322 — ArrayObject::from_descriptor has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (27 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CudnnSdk · ×1

CudnnSdk::collect_windows_cudnn_include_paths (cognitive 28) crates/cudnn-sys/build/cudnn_sdk.rs:70 — CudnnSdk::collect_windows_cudnn_include_paths has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (24 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CodegenArgs · ×1

CodegenArgs::parse (cognitive 24) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/context.rs:663 — CodegenArgs::parse has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (13 pts), match/switch 4 (10 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · NvvmOption · ×1

NvvmOption::from_str (cognitive 23) crates/nvvm/src/lib.rs:186 — NvvmOption::from_str has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (20 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 · cuda_builder · ×1

cuda_builder::invoke_rustc (cognitive 21) crates/cuda_builder/src/lib.rs:700 — cuda_builder::invoke_rustc has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (18 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 2). 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 · optix_device · ×1

optix_device::transform::interpolated_transformation (cognitive 16) crates/optix_device/src/transform.rs:245 — optix_device::transform::interpolated_transformation has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 2 (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 resource management pattern · ×1

Inconsistent resource management pattern: Some types use a static method `drop(ctx: Self)` (Cublas, Cudnn, Context, Event, ArrayObject) while others rely on standard Rust `Drop` trait or do not expose a manual drop method in the signature list. While `drop` as a static method is a valid pattern for explicit resource release, the inconsistency lies in the fact that `CudaBuilder` and `GpuBuffer`/`GpuBox` do not show a `drop` method, implying reliance on RAII, whereas the context/event types require explicit manual cleanup. This mixes RAII and manual memory management paradigms without a clear, consistent boundary. — Standardize on RAII (Drop trait) for all resources. If explicit cleanup is required for performance or determinism, provide a consistent `close()` or `release()` method on all types, rather than mixing `drop` (static) with implicit drop. (signatures: CublasContext.drop(ctx: CublasContext): DropResult | CudnnContext.drop(ctx: CudnnContext): DropResult | Event.drop(event: Event): DropResult | ArrayObject.drop(array: ArrayObject): DropResult | Context.drop(ctx: Context): DropResult)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent API for retrieving version information. `CublasContext` and `CudnnContext` return a tuple `(u32, u32, u32)` directly. `Context` and `UnownedContext` return a `CudaResult` wrapping an opaque or unspecified type (likely requiring further calls). `CudaApiVersion` uses a builder-like or accessor pattern (`get`, `major`, `minor`). This forces users to handle versioning differently depending on which context or API they are querying. · ×1

Inconsistent API for retrieving version information. `CublasContext` and `CudnnContext` return a tuple `(u32, u32, u32)` directly. `Context` and `UnownedContext` return a `CudaResult` wrapping an opaque or unspecified type (likely requiring further calls). `CudaApiVersion` uses a builder-like or accessor pattern (`get`, `major`, `minor`). This forces users to handle versioning differently depending on which context or API they are querying. — Unify version retrieval. Either all contexts return a structured `Version` type (e.g., `struct Version { major: u32, minor: u32, patch: u32 }`) or all return a `CudaResult<Version>`. Avoid returning raw tuples in some places and opaque results in others. (signatures: CublasContext.version(): (u32, u32, u32) | CudnnContext.version(): (u32, u32, u32) | CudnnContext.cuda_version(): (u32, u32, u32) | Context.get_api_version(): CudaResult | UnownedContext.get_api_version(): CudaResult | CudaApiVersion.get(): CudaResult | CudaApiVersion.major(): i32 | CudaApiVersion.minor(): i32)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent handling of stream context. `CublasContext` has a `with_stream` method that takes a closure, suggesting a scoped stream execution, but also has `set_stream` (implied by Cudnn having it, though Cublas doesn't explicitly list `set_stream` in the provided snippet, it has `with_stream`). More critically, `CudnnContext` has `set_stream` but no `with_stream`. This creates an inconsistency in how users manage stream scope · ×1

Inconsistent handling of stream context. `CublasContext` has a `with_stream` method that takes a closure, suggesting a scoped stream execution, but also has `set_stream` (implied by Cudnn having it, though Cublas doesn't explicitly list `set_stream` in the provided snippet, it has `with_stream`). More critically, `CudnnContext` has `set_stream` but no `with_stream`. This creates an inconsistency in how users manage stream scope: one library encourages scoped execution via closures, the other uses imperative state setting. — Provide consistent stream management APIs. If `with_stream` is preferred for safety, add it to `CudnnContext`. If `set_stream` is preferred for simplicity, remove `with_stream` from `CublasContext` or deprecate it. Alternatively, ensure both have both methods with consistent semantics. (signatures: CublasContext.set_atomics_mode(allowed: bool): Result | CublasContext.get_atomics_mode(): Result | CublasContext.set_math_mode(math_mode: MathMode): Result | CublasContext.get_math_mode(): Result | CudnnContext.set_stream(stream: Stream): Result | CublasContext.with_stream(stream: Stream, func: F): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant API surface due to `_strided` suffix duplication. Every BLAS Level 1 operation has a non-strided version (assuming contiguous data) and a `_strided` version. While this mirrors the underlying cuBLAS API, it creates a large, repetitive public surface. More importantly, the naming convention `_strided` is specific to cuBLAS terminology. A more idiomatic Rust API might use a single method with an optional stride parameter or a separate `Strided` trait/struct, rather than duplicating every single function name. · ×1

Redundant API surface due to `_strided` suffix duplication. Every BLAS Level 1 operation has a non-strided version (assuming contiguous data) and a `_strided` version. While this mirrors the underlying cuBLAS API, it creates a large, repetitive public surface. More importantly, the naming convention `_strided` is specific to cuBLAS terminology. A more idiomatic Rust API might use a single method with an optional stride parameter or a separate `Strided` trait/struct, rather than duplicating every single function name. — Consider unifying these into a single method signature with an optional stride parameter (e.g., `amin(stream, x, stride: Option<usize>)`) or using a builder pattern for strides. If keeping the duplication, ensure the non-strided version is clearly documented as a convenience wrapper for stride=1. (signatures: CublasContext.amin_strided(...) | CublasContext.amin(...) | CublasContext.amax_strided(...) | CublasContext.amax(...) | CublasContext.axpy_strided(...) | CublasContext.axpy(...) | CublasContext.copy_strided(...) | CublasContext.copy(...) | CublasContext.dot_strided(...) | CublasContext.dot(...) | CublasContext.dotu_strided(...) | CublasContext.dotu(...) | CublasContext.dotc_strided(...) | CublasContext.dotc(...) | CublasContext.nrm2_strided(...) | CublasContext.nrm2(...) | CublasContext.rot_strided(...) | CublasContext.rot(...) | CublasContext.rotm_strided(...) | CublasContext.rotm(...) | CublasContext.rotmg_strided(...) | CublasContext.rotmg(...) | CublasContext.scal_strided(...) | CublasContext.scal(...) | CublasContext.swap_strided(...) | CublasContext.swap(...))

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (24 lines × 3) crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:157 — crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:157-180 | crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:285-308 | crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:366-389 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

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

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1316 — crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1316-1337 | crates/optix/src/acceleration.rs:1404-1425 — 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 (21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:644 — crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:644-664 | crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:693-713 — 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 (16 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) crates/cudnn/src/convolution/convolution_algo.rs:116 — crates/cudnn/src/convolution/convolution_algo.rs:116-131 | crates/cudnn/src/convolution/convolution_algo.rs:196-211 | crates/cudnn/src/convolution/convolution_algo.rs:293-308 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) crates/nvvm/src/lib.rs:18 — crates/nvvm/src/lib.rs:18-32 | crates/nvvm/src/lib.rs:36-50 — 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 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:742 — crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:742-755 | crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:787-800 | crates/cust/src/memory/unified.rs:814-827 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 3) crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:1057 — crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:1057-1068 | crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata.rs:1095-1105 | crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata/enums.rs:169-180 — 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 (10–11 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 3) crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:293 — crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:293-302 | crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:315-325 | crates/ptx/src/lexer.rs:338-348 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) crates/cudnn/src/activation/mod.rs:85 — crates/cudnn/src/activation/mod.rs:85-90 | crates/cudnn/src/pooling/mod.rs:51-56 | crates/cudnn/src/softmax/mod.rs:56-61 — 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 (7 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:462 — crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:462-468 | crates/cust/src/context/legacy.rs:823-829 | crates/cust/src/legacy.rs:453-459 | crates/cust/src/legacy.rs:790-796 — 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 (7 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) crates/cudnn/src/backend/conv_bwd_data.rs:57 — crates/cudnn/src/backend/conv_bwd_data.rs:57-63 | crates/cudnn/src/backend/conv_bwd_filter.rs:56-62 | crates/cudnn/src/backend/conv_fwd.rs:57-63 — 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.

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

README may be stale — 33 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

Minor — 15 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Most significant orphaned file · ×3

Most significant orphaned file crates/cudnn/src/convolution/mod.rs — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file crates/cust/src/memory/array.rs — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/debug_info/metadata/enums.rs — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.

X7 · Silent fallback defaults · Silent fallback default on Err · ×2

Silent fallback default on Err crates/cust_raw/build/cuda_sdk.rs:323 — `subdirs` turns every `Err` into `vec![]` — a failure becomes a plausible value and a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or propagate it with `?`. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the arm or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
Silent fallback default on Err crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/src/back.rs:140 — `demangle_callback` turns every `Err` into `0` — a failure becomes a plausible value and a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or propagate it with `?`. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the arm or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 2 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: crates/cudnn/src/error.rs, crates/cudnn/src/backend/graph.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

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

Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 3 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 (6 single-owned of 147 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; 147 of the 234 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #3 (1 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.

D26 · Project Cohesion · Split crates/cudnn · ×1

Split crates/cudnn — A huge CUDNN library whose namespaces are all sub-operations of a single tensor/convolution stack and whose namespaces are named only parts of the algorithm (rnn, attention, softmax) — it is large and sprawls across many unrelated namespaces. Suggested:

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Concentrated knowledge decay · ×1

Concentrated knowledge decay — 102 of 149 significant files have no living knowledge, while the repository is still being changed at a low rate (15 commit(s) in the last 90 days) — so this is one repo-wide knowledge-decay state, not 102 separate risks. Counted over 149 of the 234 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. The code moved on without the people who understood these files: document them or schedule a read-through before the next change lands in them.

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.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 2/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `crates/cudnn-sys`, `crates/cust_raw`, `crates/optix-sys`, `xtask`.

Minor — 21 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×21

Outdated: anyhow — `anyhow` is locked at 1.0.100 but 1.0.104 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.44"` requirement declared in crates/optix/examples/ex02_pipeline/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p anyhow` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: bitflags — `bitflags` is locked at 2.10.0 but 2.13.2 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2.8"` requirement declared in crates/blastoff/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p bitflags` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: bytemuck — `bytemuck` is locked at 1.24.0 but 1.25.2 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.21"` requirement declared in crates/cust/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p bytemuck` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: cc — `cc` is locked at 1.2.48 but 1.5.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.2.17"` requirement declared in crates/cust_raw/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p cc` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: cfg-if — `cfg-if` is locked at 1.0.4 but 1.0.5 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.0"` requirement declared in crates/optix/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p cfg-if` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: clap — `clap` is locked at 4.5.53 but 4.6.7 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"4.5"` requirement declared in tests/compiletests/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p clap` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: curl — `curl` is locked at 0.4.49 but 0.4.50 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.4.40"` requirement declared in crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p curl` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: glam — `glam` is locked at 0.30.9 but 0.33.11 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `">=0.22"` requirement declared in crates/cuda_std/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. This crosses a compatibility boundary. Run `cargo update -p glam` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: image — `image` is locked at 0.25.9 but 0.25.10 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.25.5"` requirement declared in crates/optix/examples/denoiser/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p image` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: libc — `libc` is locked at 0.2.178 but 0.2.189 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.2.169"` requirement declared in crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p libc` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: proc-macro2 — `proc-macro2` is locked at 1.0.103 but 1.0.107 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.93"` requirement declared in crates/cuda_std_macros/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p proc-macro2` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: quote — `quote` is locked at 1.0.42 but 1.0.47 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.38"` requirement declared in crates/cuda_std_macros/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p quote` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: rayon — `rayon` is locked at 1.11.0 but 1.12.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.10"` requirement declared in xtask/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p rayon` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: regex — `regex` is locked at 1.12.2 but 1.13.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.11.1"` requirement declared in xtask/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p regex` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: rustc-demangle — `rustc-demangle` is locked at 0.1.26 but 0.1.28 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.1.24"` requirement declared in crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p rustc-demangle` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: serde — `serde` is locked at 1.0.228 but 1.0.229 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.217"` requirement declared in crates/cuda_builder/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p serde` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: serde_json — `serde_json` is locked at 1.0.145 but 1.0.151 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.138"` requirement declared in crates/cuda_builder/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p serde_json` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: smallvec — `smallvec` is locked at 1.15.1 but 1.16.2 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.13.2"` requirement declared in crates/ptx/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p smallvec` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tar — `tar` is locked at 0.4.44 but 0.4.46 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.4.43"` requirement declared in crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tar` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tracing — `tracing` is locked at 0.1.43 but 0.1.44 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.1.41"` requirement declared in crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tracing` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tracing-subscriber — `tracing-subscriber` is locked at 0.3.22 but 0.3.23 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.3.19"` requirement declared in crates/rustc_codegen_nvvm/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tracing-subscriber` and commit the updated REDACTED.

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-c4bb2375bbf941c4bac5ea7ea1109e35/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-c4bb2375bbf941c4bac5ea7ea1109e35/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	23	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	11	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	32	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 01a0f02f-91b9-799e-b178-dc2a81a0a1a8 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Rust-GPU/rust-Cuda

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 · 86% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 65% · Adequate · gated by D34 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 64% · Strong ·

At a glance — Security · 62% · Adequate · gated by D31, D36 ·

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