dodamdodam-ios — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

This system is a small, well-structured asset with a fragile operational foundation. While the code itself is clean and the domain logic is sound, the overall health score of 47% signals that the system is not yet ready for safe, independent operation. The primary risk is not in the code’s complexity, but in the lack of safeguards that allow teams to deploy changes with confidence. Without these safeguards, even minor updates carry a disproportionate risk of introducing defects or causing outages, which undermines the reliability stakeholders expect.

The biggest issue is operational trust. The system scores very low on production readiness, meaning there are no automated checks to catch errors before they reach users. This creates a dependency on manual effort and tribal knowledge, which slows down delivery and increases the cost of every change. For a business, this translates to slower time-to-market and higher long-term maintenance costs, as every release requires careful, human-led verification rather than automated assurance. The absence of automated testing is the single largest barrier to scaling this system’s value.

Conversely, the system’s architecture and code quality are genuinely strong. The code is concise, with no unnecessary boilerplate, and the domain modeling is clear. Rebuilding this system would be inexpensive, costing roughly €15,000 and requiring minimal effort. This low rebuild cost is a positive indicator, suggesting that the core logic is not entangled in technical debt. However, this strength is undermined by the lack of maturity in how the system is tested and deployed. The value tied up here is significant, but it is currently at risk due to the weak operational lens.

Focus first on establishing a basic continuous integration workflow that automatically builds and runs tests on every change. This single action provides the highest leverage, transforming the system from a fragile asset into a reliable one. It addresses the most critical gap in production readiness without requiring a major rewrite. Once this foundation is in place, the team can safely iterate on the code, knowing that defects will be caught early. This step is essential to unlock the system’s potential and reduce the risk of costly outages or delays.

Code Health 91% ★ Exemplary Architecture 90% Strong Maturity 43% Weak · gated by M2 Readiness 22% ⚠ Critical · gated by D8, D9, P1, P3 Security 100% ★ Exemplary Domain Modelling 100% ★ Exemplary

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

Readiness 22% · 46% weightMaturity 43% · 25% weightArchitecture 90% · 14% weightCode Health 91% · 8% weightSecurity 100% · 4% weightDomain Modelling 100% · 2% weight

Raise Readiness 22 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 47 → ~64.

New since the last scan (98+)

98 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D1 · RegisterInfoView.body (cyclomatic 32) Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift
D1 · ClubApplyView.body (cyclomatic 17) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift
D2 · RegisterInfoView.body (cognitive 39) Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift
D2 · NightStudyView.body (cognitive 37) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift
D2 · OutView.body (cognitive 26) Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutView.swift
D2 · ClubView.body (cognitive 24) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift
D2 · ClubApplyView.body (cognitive 24) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift
D2 · MyClubView.body (cognitive 23) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/MyClubView.swift
D2 · WakeupSongView.body (cognitive 21) Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift
D2 · AffiliationCell.body (cognitive 19) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift
D2 · RemoteInterceptor.retry (cognitive 17) Projects/Data/Network/Source/Remote/RemoteInterceptor.swift
D2 · HomeView.body (cognitive 17) Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeView.swift
D2 · OutApplyView.body (cognitive 16) Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift
D3 · MethodTooLong: RegisterInfoView.body Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift
D3 · MethodTooLong: ClubApplyView.body Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift
D3 · MethodTooLong: NightProjectApplyView.body Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift
D3 · MethodTooLong: OutApplyView.body Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift
D3 · MethodTooLong: HomeView.body Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeView.swift
D3 · MethodTooLong: WakeupSongApplyView.body Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyView.swift
D3 · MethodTooLong: NightStudyApplyView.body Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift
D3 · MethodTooLong: WakeupSongView.body Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (73–80 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (17–25 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingStudentInfoHeader.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingNightStudyStudentCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (11–14 lines × 5) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Member/MemberResponse.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 8) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutGoing/OutGoingResponse.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/ApproveNightStudySheetCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyViewModel.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllView.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/LocalAssembly.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) Projects/Domain/Source/Entity/ClubTeacher.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Projects/Domain/Source/Model/MealModel.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Auth/DeepLinkLoginRequest.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Meal/FetchMealRequest.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllViewModel.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionViewModel.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/AddMember/AddMemberViewModel.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailView.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/Meal/MealService.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift
D6 · Low cohesion: AppDelegate (LCOM4 5) Projects/App/iOS/Source/AppDelegate.swift
D6 · Low cohesion: Date (LCOM4 4) Projects/Domain/Source/Entity/MealType.swift
D12 · Floating branch dependency: flowkit
D15 · Repeated repair: Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift
D17 · TodoComment Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift
D17 · TodoComment Projects/Feature/Source/Division/CreateDivision/CreateDivisionView.swift
D17 · TodoComment Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealView.swift
D17 · TodoComment Projects/Feature/Source/Notice/NoticeView.swift
D17 · TodoComment Projects/Feature/Source/Notice/Component/NoticeFile.swift
D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: MealView.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealView.swift
D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: OutSleepingCell.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift
D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: OutGoingCell.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift
D35 · Boundary-crossing change coupling: NightStudyApplyCell.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift
D35 · Change coupling: NightStudyStatusContainer.swift ↔ OutStatusContainer.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift
D35 · Change-coupling hub: NightStudyRepository.swift → NightStudyDataSource.swift, NightStudyRemote.swift, NightStudyService.swift, NightProjectApplyView.swift Projects/Domain/Source/Repository/NightStudy/NightStudyRepository.swift
D35 · Change coupling: TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift ↔ WakeupSongCell.swift Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift
D35 · Change coupling: OutGoingCell.swift ↔ OutSleepingCell.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift
D35 · Change-coupling hub: NightStudyRepositoryImpl.swift → NightStudyRemote.swift, NightStudyService.swift, NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift, NightStudyView.swift, NightStudyViewModel.swift Projects/Data/Repository/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyRepositoryImpl.swift
D35 · Change coupling: NightStudyApplyCell.swift ↔ OutGoingCell.swift Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift
D35 · Change coupling: Project.swift ↔ Project.swift Projects/App/Project.swift
D35 · Change coupling: NightStudyApplyCell.swift ↔ OutSleepingCell.swift Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift
D35 · Change-coupling hub: NightStudyView.swift → NightStudyDataSource.swift, NightStudyRemote.swift, NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift
D35 · Change coupling: HomeViewModel.swift ↔ MealViewModel.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift
D35 · Change coupling: WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift ↔ WakeupSongViewModel.swift Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift
D35 · Change coupling: WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift ↔ WakeupSongView.swift Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift
D35 · Change coupling: NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift ↔ NightStudyApplyView.swift Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift

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 — €5,000–€25,000

Cost to rebuild	€5,000–€25,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (83–263 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 47% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€15,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 22% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.

+17.1 pts · Low effort · Code Coverage

Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.

+17.1 pts · Low effort · Test Distribution

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

+22.4 pts · Medium effort · CI/CD gates

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 22%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (16,569 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 22%

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

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

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.)

78 modules, 255 dependencies. 1 dependency cycle across 9 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 38 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 Projects~Data~DataSource	2 Projects~Feature~Core	3 Projects~Domain~Model	4 Projects~Shared~SwiftUI	5 Projects~Domain~Request	6 Projects~Domain~Response	7 Projects~Domain~Repository	8 Projects~Feature~Club	9 Projects~Domain~Entity	10 Projects~Data~Network	11 Projects~Data~Local~Meal	12 Projects~Data~Network~Remote	14 Projects~Feature~Auth	19 Projects~Data~DataSource~Auth	21 Projects~Data~DataSource~Club	22 Projects~Data~DataSource~Division	24 Projects~Data~DataSource~Member	25 Projects~Data~DataSource~NightStudy	27 Projects~Data~DataSource~OutGoing	28 Projects~Data~DataSource~OutSleeping	31 Projects~Data~DataSource~WakeupSong
1 Projects~Data~DataSource
2 Projects~Feature~Core
3 Projects~Domain~Model									9	12
4 Projects~Shared~SwiftUI										3
5 Projects~Domain~Request			2						8	41
6 Projects~Domain~Response			15						51	61
7 Projects~Domain~Repository			2		38	32			1	8
8 Projects~Feature~Club		2		12		12	4		1	7
9 Projects~Domain~Entity								1		24
10 Projects~Data~Network									1
11 Projects~Data~Local~Meal			3		2				1	2
12 Projects~Data~Network~Remote					38	24			1	9
13 Projects~Feature~All		1		7		6	5			6
14 Projects~Feature~Auth			1	6			2		2	6
15 Projects~Feature~Home		1	2	8		12	8		2	3
16 Projects~Feature~Meal		1	2	2			1		3	1
17 Projects~Feature~NightStudy		4		15		13	5		7	11
18 Projects~Feature~Out		1		4		4	4		1	4
19 Projects~Data~DataSource~Auth	1				3	3						1
20 Projects~Data~DataSource~Bus	1					1				1		1
21 Projects~Data~DataSource~Club	1				1	8				1		1
22 Projects~Data~DataSource~Division	1				7	4				1		1
23 Projects~Data~DataSource~Meal	2				4	1					2	1
24 Projects~Data~DataSource~Member	1				8	2			1	1		1
25 Projects~Data~DataSource~NightStudy					3	6				1		1
26 Projects~Data~DataSource~Notice	1				2	1						1
27 Projects~Data~DataSource~OutGoing	1				1	1				1		1
28 Projects~Data~DataSource~OutSleeping	1				1	1				1		1
29 Projects~Data~DataSource~Point	1				2	2						1
30 Projects~Data~DataSource~Schedule	1				4	1						1
31 Projects~Data~DataSource~WakeupSong	1				4	3				1		1
32 Projects~Feature~ChildrenManage		1	5	5			2			4			1
33 Projects~Data~Repository~Auth			1		3	1	1							1
34 Projects~Data~Repository~Club					1	8	1			1					1
35 Projects~Data~Repository~Division					7	4	1			1						1
36 Projects~Data~Repository~Member					8	2	1		1	1							1
37 Projects~Data~Repository~NightStudy					3	6	1			1								1
38 Projects~Data~Repository~OutGoing					1	1	1			1									1
39 Projects~Data~Repository~OutSleeping					1	1	1			1										1
40 Projects~Data~Repository~WakeupSong					4	3	1			1											1

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

At a glance — Code Health · 91% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Swift Cyclomatic Complexity 9.0 D2 · Swift Cognitive Complexity 8.1 D3 · Swift God Classes 7.8 D4 · Swift Code Duplication 8.7 D17 · Swift Explicit Debt 9.9

At a glance — Architecture · 90% · Strong ·

The Good

D6 · Swift Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.4 D35 · Swift Change Coupling 8.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.2 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 43% · Weak · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Swift Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Swift Bus Factor 9.4 D21 · Swift Naming Consistency 10.0

The Bad

D19 · Swift Documentation Quality 5.0 D34 · Swift Knowledge Freshness 5.6 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 6.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 6.0

The Ugly

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 22% · Critical · gated by D8, D9, P1, P3 ·

The Good

D12 · Swift Dependency Hygiene 8.6 D13 · Swift Secret Scanning 10.0

The Bad

P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

D8 · Swift Code Coverage 0.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D28 · Swift Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · Swift Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic domain model 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0

Roadmap

Establish a CI workflow to build and test on every push, immediately resolving the lack of automated testing and coverage gaps. Maintain a changelog to track release changes and document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated, discoverable location to preserve design context.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.	+17.1 pts	Low	Code Coverage
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.	+17.1 pts	Low	Test Distribution
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.	+22.4 pts	Medium	CI/CD gates
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.	+17.1 pts	Medium	Release Hygiene
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).	+12.8 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md.	+6.4 pts	Low	Documentation Quality
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+10.2 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.	+10.2 pts	Medium	Folder & project structure

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 58 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 36% mixed · 64% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift	5.8	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: NightStudyApplyCell.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift
Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealView.swift	6.2	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: MealView.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift
Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift	6.3	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: NightStudyView.body (cognitive 37)
Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift	6.5	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: OutGoingCell.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift
Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift	7.0	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: AffiliationCell.body (cognitive 19)
Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2)
Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)
Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift	7.1	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ClubApplyView.body (cyclomatic 17)
Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: RegisterInfoView.body (cyclomatic 32)
Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift	7.4	Mixed	God Classes: MethodTooLong: NightProjectApplyView.body
Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift	7.8	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: ClubView.body (cognitive 24)
Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift	7.8	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: WakeupSongView.body (cognitive 21)
Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeView.swift	7.8	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: HomeView.body (cognitive 17)
Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift	7.8	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: OutApplyView.body (cognitive 16)
Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (26 lines × 2)
Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)
Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)

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 — 5

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 — 96

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 — 15

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

Could not be resolved — 46

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. 27 of 30 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — 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 — 30 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D6D8D9D12D13D15D16D17D19D21D28D29D34D35AX10AX9DM4DM5DM6M1M2M3M4P1P3P6

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, 99 of 116 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0c0df-fe05-73e8-9b70-f69010117c6e.

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.

D14 License Compliance — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D20 ADR Quality — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The ADR expectation is gated on whether a repository ships a deployable product. Our repo-kind classifier reads .NET project files and the host and package markers of the other ecosystems it knows (a Go `package main`, a Cargo binary, a package.json `bin` or `start` script, Python console scripts or a Django/WSGI entry point, a Spring Boot / WAR / Gradle application build, a Rack or Rails app, a Composer project, an OTP release or escript, a Dockerfile, a Procfile, and the corresponding published-package manifests, including an OTP `*.app.src`), and found none here, so we could not tell what kind of repository this is and did not assess its ADR log. This is a gap in our analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: D22 has no public-API collector for any other ecosystem, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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. Osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 'osv-scanner' exited 128 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the repository.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 'osv-scanner' exited 128 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the 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, 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 (go.mod, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AX3 Project dependency cycles — 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 which project references which — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX4 Dependency direction — 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 direction each project reference points — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX8 Test isolation — 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 which projects are test projects, and what they reference — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's 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.
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.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
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.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
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.
DM4 Rich vs anemic domain model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of 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.
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 (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.0 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

2 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was RegisterInfoView.body at 32.

RegisterInfoView.body (cyclomatic 32)Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift:19

ClubApplyView.body (cyclomatic 17)Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift:25

What to do

Resolve the 1 RegisterInfoView.body (cyclomatic 32) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with RegisterInfoView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ClubApplyView.body (cyclomatic 17) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ClubApplyView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

11 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was RegisterInfoView.body at 39.

RegisterInfoView.body (cognitive 39)Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift:19

NightStudyView.body (cognitive 37)Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift:21

OutView.body (cognitive 26)Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutView.swift:22

ClubView.body (cognitive 24)Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift:19

ClubApplyView.body (cognitive 24)Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift:25

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

What to do

Resolve the 1 RegisterInfoView.body (cognitive 39) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with RegisterInfoView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 NightStudyView.body (cognitive 37) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with NightStudyView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 OutView.body (cognitive 26) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with OutView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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 Classes7.8 / 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 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

MethodTooLong: RegisterInfoView.body · ×8Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift:19

What to do

Resolve the 8 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with RegisterInfoView.swift, ClubApplyView.swift, NightProjectApplyView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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 Duplication8.7 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

48 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×4Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutGoing/OutGoingResponse.swift:23

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllView.swift:33

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×3Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:20

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×3Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:42

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift:17

+ 27 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with OutGoingResponse.swift, DivisionView.swift, ApproveNightStudySheetCell.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AllView.swift, NightProjectApplyView.swift, AddMemberViewModel.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AffiliationCell.swift, NightProjectApplyCell.swift, RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.4 / 10Stronggated by 2 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 37 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: AppDelegate (LCOM4 5) · ×2Projects/App/iOS/Source/AppDelegate.swift:14

What to do

Resolve the 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with AppDelegate.swift, MealType.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cohesion (LCOM4) in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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?

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

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

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

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

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

No automated tests

What to do

Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Coverage in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No test suite found.

No tests found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~9.6~~ 8.6 / 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 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 90% · ceiling Verified

4 outdated direct SwiftPM dependencies, 1 pinning defect(s). 9 of 10 direct dependencies had their releases listed (0 naming no readable repository, 1 pinned to a branch or a revision rather than a version). SwiftPM has no package registry: a dependency is a repository URL and its releases are that repository's semver tags, so currency is answered by listing tags rather than by querying an index. Only a newer tag on the SAME MAJOR is reported — a `from:` requirement admits everything below the next major and nothing above it, so a major crossing needs a Package.swift edit rather than an update, and naming the update as its remedy would be wrong. Whether any dependency is DEPRECATED or ABANDONED is not graded and cannot be: a repository publishes no such marker, and there is no registry that could carry one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question.

Floating branch dependency: flowkit

Outdated: realm-swift · ×4

What to do

Resolve the 1 Floating branch dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Dependency Hygiene in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window. Repeated repair below the complexity floor: Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift (3 of 3 changes were fixes)

Repeated repair: Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swiftProjects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift:85

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.4 / 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift. Counted over 85 of the 372 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ 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 Debt9.9 / 10Stronggated by 5 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 deducted task-comment markers across 16569 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 9.9. 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 · ×5Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift:89

What to do

Resolve the 5 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DivisionView.swift, CreateDivisionView.swift, MealView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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 QualityAdequate◐ 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 Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

This is a single README file for the iOS app DodamDodam that describes itself as an '스마트 학교 관리 서비스' built by B1ND. It shows a preview of the app and steps to install mise, run the project, set provisioning profiles for debug and release builds, and upload it via App Store Connect. The document is visually rich with images (the five-preview section) but only one file; no architecture or design documentation exists.

Documentation: no installation or build instructionsREADME.md

What to do

Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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?

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)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness5.6 / 10Adequate✓ 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 5.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

39 of 85 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Projects/Feature/Source/ChildrenManage/ChildrenManageView.swift. Counted over 85 of the 372 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

What to do

Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge 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 Coupling8.9 / 10Adequategated by 4 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: NightStudyStatusContainer.swift↔OutStatusContainer.swift 86%; NightStudyDataSource.swift↔NightStudyRepository.swift 85%; TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift↔WakeupSongCell.swift 82%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: MealView.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift · ×4Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealView.swift

Change coupling: NightStudyStatusContainer.swift ↔ OutStatusContainer.swift · ×11Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift

Change-coupling hub: NightStudyRepository.swift → NightStudyDataSource.swift, NightStudyRemote.swift, NightStudyService.swift, NightProjectApplyView.swift · ×3Projects/Domain/Source/Repository/NightStudy/NightStudyRepository.swift

What to do

Resolve the 4 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with MealView.swift, OutSleepingCell.swift, OutGoingCell.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 11 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with NightStudyApplyCell.swift (2), WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift (2), NightStudyStatusContainer.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Change-coupling hub finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with NightStudyRepository.swift, NightStudyRepositoryImpl.swift, NightStudyView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. 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.

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?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic domain model10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain entities own their behaviour — a data-only reference entity whose logic lives in a foreign service is anemic. Rich models enforce their own invariants.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a reference entity protects its own invariants — a class whose identity is a computed content hash but whose hashed fields are publicly mutable bypasses that invariant. Encapsulated state keeps identity-bearing fields immutable.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies — a domain entity fused to a persistence ORM on its own declaration (active-record), or reaching a web-framework transport type in its own method, couples the domain to infrastructure. The clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 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 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
No test surface was found — this check walked the tree for authored source in the languages it models (`.cs`, `.vb`, `.fs`, `.java`, `.kt`, `.scala`, `.py`, `.php`, `.rb`, `.ex`, `.exs`, `.go`, `.erl`, `.hrl`, `.swift`, `.dart`, `.rs`, `.ts`, `.tsx`, `.mts`, `.cts`) and found none of it test-shaped. ★ `.js`, `.jsx`, `.mjs` and `.cjs` are NOT in that walk, so a Jest or Mocha suite written in plain JavaScript is invisible to it and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than moving anything. Otherwise there are no tests here to separate from production code, so the folder question hasn't been reached yet.

What to do

Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
Start a test surface where your build system looks for one (tests/, test/, spec/, or your ecosystem's test source set) — the separation follows from putting the first tests in the right place.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy6.0 / 10Adequate◐ 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.

README claims iOS app with App Store link but the repository contains no iOS project — searched for: `iOS app`, `App Store link`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README claims iOS app with App Store link but the repository contains no iOS project.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

What to do

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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	91%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	90%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	43%	Weak — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	22%	Critical — gated by D8, D9, P1, P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Domain Modelling	100%	Exemplary	Solid.

Not evidenced — 5 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.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 85 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
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 — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
D11 Test Reliability — No test suite was found to re-run, so reliability couldn't be assessed. Two searches produced that zero and both came back empty: the classifier that reads the loaded workspace recognised no suite it could run, and a walk of the source on disk — which covers the JS/TS `*.test.*` and `*.spec.*` conventions and probes for a Pester suite — found no test source in any other ecosystem either. Neither search reaches a suite that is missing from the loaded workspace and carries no name either walk recognises, so this is 'no suite found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none.
D14 License Compliance — SwiftPM package licences not graded — SwiftPM publishes no registry carrying licence metadata
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 — Repository kind not determined
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.swift) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. 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
D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — Navigability analysis does not read .swift, and .swift is this repository's production source, so no call sites were sampled and tracing effort was not assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
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.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
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
DM1 Aggregate boundaries — not scored for Swift: the sidecar flattens array/collection types (a child COLLECTION = legitimate membership vs a single embedded aggregate is indistinguishable), and aggregate-vs-value-object classification cannot be told apart in source (every struct-holding-struct reads alike) — reported as guidance rather than measured
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no in-repo typed-id idiom — primitive-obsession recorded as advisory DM8, DM2 not gated
DM3 Integration-event coupling — not scored for Swift: a cross-SwiftPM-target domain leak cannot be told apart in source from a legitimate shared-kernel/contracts module, and most repositories ship a single module — reported as guidance rather than measured
DM7 Repository granularity — not scored for Swift: 'a repository per CHILD entity' needs the aggregate-root structure, which is not source-resolvable — reported as guidance rather than measured
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down 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 — no CI workflow found
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from 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
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`) 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 — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
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
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
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 — 5 finding(s)

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×4

Boundary-crossing change coupling: MealView.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealView.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealView.swift` (context Feature) and `Projects/Shared/Source/Util/DataUtil.swift` (context Shared) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `1d857058` refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Meal/MealView.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift`); `5af7a252` delete: Delete loging code (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Meal/MealView.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift`); `5ab92487` feat: Create out progress logic (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Meal/MealView.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: OutSleepingCell.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift` (context Feature) and `Projects/Shared/Source/Util/DataUtil.swift` (context Shared) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9227ee0d` refactor: Refactor code; `1d857058` refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift`); `29fd6c18` feat: Create date logic to out screen (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: OutGoingCell.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift` (context Feature) and `Projects/Shared/Source/Util/DataUtil.swift` (context Shared) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9227ee0d` refactor: Refactor code; `1d857058` refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift`); `29fd6c18` feat: Create date logic to out screen (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: NightStudyApplyCell.swift ↔ DataUtil.swift Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` (context Feature) and `Projects/Shared/Source/Util/DataUtil.swift` (context Shared) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9227ee0d` refactor: Refactor code; `1d857058` refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift`); `5af7a252` delete: Delete loging code (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Shared/Util/DataUtil.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.

D8 · Code Coverage · No automated tests · ×1

No automated tests — No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely. Start with the code you change most often: add a suite in a framework a runner can collect (XCTest or Swift Testing), and run it in CI so the gap cannot reopen.

Serious — 96 finding(s)

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×11

Change coupling: NightStudyStatusContainer.swift ↔ OutStatusContainer.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/OutStatusContainer.swift` change together 86% of the time (12 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 12 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9227ee0d` refactor: Refactor code; `131de8ab` feat: Apply StatusContainer Changes; `1d857058` refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Home/Component/OutStatusContainer.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift ↔ WakeupSongCell.swift Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/WakeupSongCell.swift` change together 82% of the time (9 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `32e27e62` feat: Apply DodamShape; `57a7db44` feat: Apply DDS Changes; `5175ba32` fix: Fix meal text (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Component/WakeupSongCell.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: OutGoingCell.swift ↔ OutSleepingCell.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift` change together 80% of the time (8 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9227ee0d` refactor: Refactor code; `1d857058` refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift`); `29fd6c18` feat: Create date logic to out screen (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: NightStudyApplyCell.swift ↔ OutGoingCell.swift Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift` change together 73% of the time (11 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 11 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9227ee0d` refactor: Refactor code; `131de8ab` feat: Apply StatusContainer Changes; `91f9f77f` feat: Apply NightStudyApplyCell, OutGoingCell Changes — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: Project.swift ↔ Project.swift Projects/App/Project.swift — `Projects/App/Project.swift` and `Projects/Data/Project.swift` change together 70% of the time (7 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `2db712ae` fix: To save pushToken; `c6921479` feat: Send pushToken to login; `2dcc2079` feat: Create Periphery script & module — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: NightStudyDataSource.swift ↔ NightStudyService.swift Projects/Data/DataSource/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyDataSource.swift — `Projects/Data/DataSource/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyDataSource.swift` and `Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/NightStudy/NightStudyService.swift` change together 69% of the time (9 of the 13 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9b22d1ab` feat: add NightStudy ban; `fd76807b` feat: add NightStudy Manager; `d61e5cba` remove: room logic — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: NightStudyApplyCell.swift ↔ OutSleepingCell.swift Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9227ee0d` refactor: Refactor code; `1d857058` refactor: Refactor Date (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift`); `7eecd13f` feat: Craete out, night study reject view (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Feature/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: HomeViewModel.swift ↔ MealViewModel.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealViewModel.swift` change together 50% of the time (8 of the 16 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `3710eebc` feat: Create OnAppearProtocol; `a1c41fad` Create MealModel; `3c78a7a6` refactor: getDate -> Date subscript — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift ↔ WakeupSongViewModel.swift Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongViewModel.swift` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `7937e011` feat: Apply DodamDialog (alert func); `d97f2424` feat: Add refreshable to all Views (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/WakeupSongViewModel.swift`); `24c007ea` refactor: Refactor refresh logic (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/WakeupSongViewModel.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift ↔ WakeupSongView.swift Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `7937e011` feat: Apply DodamDialog (alert func); `24c007ea` refactor: Refactor refresh logic (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift`); `bc95912c` fix: Fix empty data view (at that commit the files were still `Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyViewModel.swift` and `Projects/App/Source/Feature/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift ↔ NightStudyApplyView.swift Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `0f1ba450` feat: add CheckUsingRoomRepo; `453de998` fix: Night Project Apply Response; `755b4cb8` fix: Night Study Apply — run `git show` on any of them.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×8

MethodTooLong: RegisterInfoView.body Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift:19 — MethodTooLong — body runs 150 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 50 over it, 1.50× 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: ClubApplyView.body Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift:25 — MethodTooLong — body runs 149 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.49× 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: NightProjectApplyView.body Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:21 — MethodTooLong — body runs 134 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 34 over it, 1.34× 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: OutApplyView.body Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift:26 — MethodTooLong — body runs 120 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 20 over it, 1.20× 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: HomeView.body Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeView.swift:23 — MethodTooLong — body runs 116 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 16 over it, 1.16× 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: WakeupSongApplyView.body Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Apply/WakeupSongApplyView.swift:20 — MethodTooLong — body runs 115 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.15× 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: NightStudyApplyView.body Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:21 — MethodTooLong — body runs 113 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 13 over it, 1.13× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: WakeupSongView.body Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift:20 — MethodTooLong — body runs 111 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 11 over it, 1.11× 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×5

TodoComment Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift:89 — // TODO: 마감 후 구현 — 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 Projects/Feature/Source/Division/CreateDivision/CreateDivisionView.swift:38 — // TODO: Add Max length — 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 Projects/Feature/Source/Meal/MealView.swift:114 — // TODO: ScrollView에 있던 거 그대로 갖고 왔습니다. 나중에 Extension으로 분리할 것. — 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 Projects/Feature/Source/Notice/NoticeView.swift:47 — // TODO: Fix DDS — 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 Projects/Feature/Source/Notice/Component/NoticeFile.swift:24 — // TODO: Refactor — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutGoing/OutGoingResponse.swift:23 — Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutGoing/OutGoingResponse.swift:23-32 | Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutSleeping/OutSleepingResponse.swift:23-32 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutGoing/OutGoingResponse.swift` and `Projects/Domain/Source/Response/OutSleeping/OutSleepingResponse.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift:29 — Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift:29-38 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift:53-62 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionView.swift:29` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/ApproveNightStudySheetCell.swift:42 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/ApproveNightStudySheetCell.swift:42-51 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/ApproveNightStudySheetCell.swift:54-63 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/ApproveNightStudySheetCell.swift:42` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift:40 — Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift:40-49 | Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutSleeping/OutSleepingService.swift:40-49 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllView.swift:33 — Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllView.swift:33-40 | Projects/Feature/Source/All/Setting/SettingView.swift:23-30 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllView.swift:33` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `spacing` to `24` in one and `12` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:49 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:49-56 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:41-48 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:49` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:40` calls `VStack` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:47` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/AddMember/AddMemberViewModel.swift:59 — Projects/Feature/Source/Division/AddMember/AddMemberViewModel.swift:59-66 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Waiting/DivisionWaitingViewModel.swift:56-64 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift:44 — Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift:44-51 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Waiting/DivisionWaitingViewModel.swift:33-40 — 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.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change-coupling hub · ×3

Change-coupling hub: NightStudyRepository.swift → NightStudyDataSource.swift, NightStudyRemote.swift, NightStudyService.swift, NightProjectApplyView.swift Projects/Domain/Source/Repository/NightStudy/NightStudyRepository.swift — `Projects/Domain/Source/Repository/NightStudy/NightStudyRepository.swift` changes together with 4 other files — `Projects/Data/DataSource/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyDataSource.swift`, `Projects/Data/Network/Source/Remote/NightStudy/NightStudyRemote.swift`, `Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/NightStudy/NightStudyService.swift`, `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 4 separate couplings, not 4 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 4.
Change-coupling hub: NightStudyRepositoryImpl.swift → NightStudyRemote.swift, NightStudyService.swift, NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift, NightStudyView.swift, NightStudyViewModel.swift Projects/Data/Repository/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyRepositoryImpl.swift — `Projects/Data/Repository/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyRepositoryImpl.swift` changes together with 5 other files — `Projects/Data/Network/Source/Remote/NightStudy/NightStudyRemote.swift`, `Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/NightStudy/NightStudyService.swift`, `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift`, `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift`, `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyViewModel.swift` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 5 separate couplings, not 5 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 5.
Change-coupling hub: NightStudyView.swift → NightStudyDataSource.swift, NightStudyRemote.swift, NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift — `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift` changes together with 3 other files — `Projects/Data/DataSource/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyDataSource.swift`, `Projects/Data/Network/Source/Remote/NightStudy/NightStudyRemote.swift`, `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyViewModel.swift` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 3 separate couplings, not 3 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 3.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×3

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:20 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:20-103 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:20-91 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/MyApplyCell.swift:19-86 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/SugestCell.swift:16-88 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:27 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:27-101 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:27-116 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift:26-104 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift:26-104 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:22 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:22-92 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:21-196 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:21-163 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift:26-176 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:42 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:42-57 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:61-76 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:42` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift:36 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift:36-51 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift:72-87 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift:36` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:50 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:50-65 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:50-65 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:50` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:66` calls `label`, `foreground`, `Text` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:66` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift:17 — Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift:17-23 | Projects/App/iOS/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift:32-38 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift` and `Projects/App/iOS/Source/DI/Assembly/DataSourceAssembly.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 94% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Projects/Domain/Source/Model/MealModel.swift:22 — Projects/Domain/Source/Model/MealModel.swift:22-28 | Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Meal/MealResponse.swift:17-23 — 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) Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift:24 — Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutGoing/OutGoingService.swift:24-30 | Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/OutSleeping/OutSleepingService.swift:24-30 — 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 (17 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:42 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:42-58 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:67-83 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:42` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:84 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:84-100 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:72-88 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:84` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift:112 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift:112-126 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/CreateDivision/CreateDivisionView.swift:42-56 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift:112` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift:18 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift:18-32 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/ManageNightStudyView.swift:18-32 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift:18` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Member/MemberResponse.swift:32 — Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Member/MemberResponse.swift:32-45 | Projects/Domain/Source/Response/NightStudy/NightStudyResponse.swift:35-48 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Member/MemberResponse.swift:32` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift:32 — Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift:32-45 | Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/WakeupSongCell.swift:25-38 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift:32` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/WakeupSongCell.swift:39` calls `padding` and `Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/Component/TomorrowWakeupSongCell.swift:46` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:60 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:60-72 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:54-66 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:60` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift:53 — Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailViewModel.swift:53-65 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Waiting/DivisionWaitingViewModel.swift:42-54 — 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 (5 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/LocalAssembly.swift:15 — Projects/App/iOS-Widget/Source/DI/Assembly/LocalAssembly.swift:15-19 | Projects/App/iOS/Source/DI/Assembly/LocalAssembly.swift:13-17 — 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 (5 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailView.swift:210 — Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailView.swift:210-214 | Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Waiting/DivisionWaitingMemberView.swift:80-84 — 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 (6 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Auth/DeepLinkLoginRequest.swift:9 — Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Auth/DeepLinkLoginRequest.swift:9-19 | Projects/Domain/Source/Response/Club/ClubRegisterTimeResponse.swift:16-21 — 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 (6 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionViewModel.swift:124 — Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionViewModel.swift:124-129 | Projects/Feature/Source/Notice/NoticeViewModel.swift:112-117 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllViewModel.swift:43 — Projects/Feature/Source/All/AllViewModel.swift:43-50 | Projects/Feature/Source/All/Setting/SettingViewModel.swift:39-46 | Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift:200-207 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/Meal/MealService.swift:37 — Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/Meal/MealService.swift:37-44 | Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/Notice/NoticeService.swift:37-44 | Projects/Data/Network/Source/Service/Point/PointService.swift:37-44 — 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×2

Low cohesion: AppDelegate (LCOM4 5) Projects/App/iOS/Source/AppDelegate.swift:14 — AppDelegate's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — 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 5 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: Date (LCOM4 4) Projects/Domain/Source/Entity/MealType.swift:38 — Date'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 · RegisterInfoView.body (cyclomatic 32) · ×1

RegisterInfoView.body (cyclomatic 32) Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift:19 — RegisterInfoView.body has cyclomatic complexity 32 (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 · ClubApplyView.body (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

ClubApplyView.body (cyclomatic 17) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift:25 — ClubApplyView.body 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.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Floating branch dependency · ×1

Floating branch dependency: flowkit — Dependency `flowkit` is declared in Tuist/Package.swift against branch `main` — the declaration pins no immutable point, so `swift package update` moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (`from:`, `.upToNextMajor(from:)`, `exact:`) or to a `revision:` commit SHA.

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

Repeated repair: Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift:85 — Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 4 (its worst body is HomeViewModel.fetchMealData at line 85), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: today meal Text”; “fix: homeViewModel function”; “fix: MealContainer data”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2025-09-20..2025-12-19, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2025-09-20 13:18:39 +09:00' --until='2025-12-19 13:18:39 +09:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeViewModel.swift`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RegisterInfoView.body (cognitive 39) · ×1

RegisterInfoView.body (cognitive 39) Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/Info/RegisterInfoView.swift:19 — RegisterInfoView.body has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (28 pts), match/switch 3 (7 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · NightStudyView.body (cognitive 37) · ×1

NightStudyView.body (cognitive 37) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyView.swift:21 — NightStudyView.body has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (36 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 20). 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 · OutView.body (cognitive 26) · ×1

OutView.body (cognitive 26) Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutView.swift:22 — OutView.body has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (26 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ClubView.body (cognitive 24) · ×1

ClubView.body (cognitive 24) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift:19 — ClubView.body has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (24 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ClubApplyView.body (cognitive 24) · ×1

ClubApplyView.body (cognitive 24) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift:25 — ClubApplyView.body has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 7, ternaries 2 (4 pts) (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MyClubView.body (cognitive 23) · ×1

MyClubView.body (cognitive 23) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/MyClubView.swift:20 — MyClubView.body has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (16 pts), ternaries 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). 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 · WakeupSongView.body (cognitive 21) · ×1

WakeupSongView.body (cognitive 21) Projects/Feature/Source/WakeupSong/WakeupSongView.swift:20 — WakeupSongView.body has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (21 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AffiliationCell.body (cognitive 19) · ×1

AffiliationCell.body (cognitive 19) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:20 — AffiliationCell.body has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (19 pts) (nesting depth added 11). 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 · RemoteInterceptor.retry (cognitive 17) · ×1

RemoteInterceptor.retry (cognitive 17) Projects/Data/Network/Source/Remote/RemoteInterceptor.swift:36 — RemoteInterceptor.retry has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HomeView.body (cognitive 17) · ×1

HomeView.body (cognitive 17) Projects/Feature/Source/Home/HomeView.swift:23 — HomeView.body has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), ternaries 3, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · OutApplyView.body (cognitive 16) · ×1

OutApplyView.body (cognitive 16) Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift:26 — OutApplyView.body has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (10 pts), ternaries 5, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (73–80 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (73–80 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:65 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:65-137 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:57-136 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:65` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift:25 — Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/NightStudyStatusContainer.swift:25-54 | Projects/Feature/Source/Home/Component/OutStatusContainer.swift:25-55 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:66 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:66-94 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:69-97 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:66` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:66` calls `label`, `foreground`, `Text` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:65` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:20 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:20-47 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:20-47 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:20` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift:46 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift:46-71 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/ManageNightStudyView.swift:46-71 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift:46` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17–25 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17–25 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingStudentInfoHeader.swift:12 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingStudentInfoHeader.swift:12-28 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/ApproveStudentInfoHeader.swift:12-36 — 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 (24 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift:25 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift:25-48 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift:51-74 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/ClubView.swift:25` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:27 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:27-48 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:27-48 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:27` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingNightStudyStudentCell.swift:29 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingNightStudyStudentCell.swift:29-47 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/ApprovedNightStudyStudentCell.swift:22-40 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/Component/PendingNightStudyStudentCell.swift:29` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:32 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:32-48 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift:32-48 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift:31-47 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift:31-47 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightStudyApplyCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:32` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–14 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–14 lines × 5) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:50 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:50-63 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:102-112 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:133-143 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:95-108 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:129-142 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:50` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:91 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:91-102 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:79-90 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/SugestCell.swift:76-87 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:91` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:93 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:93-103 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:81-91 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/MyApplyCell.swift:76-86 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/SugestCell.swift:78-88 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:93` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:91 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:91-101 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutGoingCell.swift:94-104 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift:94-104 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/Component/NightProjectApplyCell.swift:91` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 8) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 8) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:55 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:55-64 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:104-113 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift:135-144 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:100-109 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift:134-143 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift:52-61 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift:84-93 | Projects/Feature/Source/Out/OutApply/OutApplyView.swift:115-124 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightProjectApply/NightProjectApplyView.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/NightStudyApply/NightStudyApplyView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/Component/RejectNightStudySheetCell.swift:55` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:40 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:40-49 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:65-74 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:40-49 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:59-68 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:40` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `spacing` to `14` in one and `7` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyViewModel.swift:28 — Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyViewModel.swift:28-36 | Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/ManageNightStudyViewModel.swift:30-38 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyViewModel.swift:28` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:29 — Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:29-35 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift:29-35 | Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/MyApplyCell.swift:28-34 — before extracting anything, compare `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:29` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift:39` calls `VStack` and `Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/MyApplyCell.swift:38` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) Projects/Domain/Source/Entity/ClubTeacher.swift:15 — Projects/Domain/Source/Entity/ClubTeacher.swift:15-19 | Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Auth/PostLoginRequest.swift:14-18 | Projects/Domain/Source/Request/OutSleeping/PostOutSleepingRequest.swift:14-18 | Projects/Domain/Source/Response/NightStudy/NightStudyBanResponse.swift:8-12 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 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 4 times.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Meal/FetchMealRequest.swift:14 — Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Meal/FetchMealRequest.swift:14-18 | Projects/Domain/Source/Request/Schedule/FetchScheduleByDateRequest.swift:13-17 | Projects/Domain/Source/Request/WakeupSong/FetchAllowedWakeupSongRequest.swift:13-17 — 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.

P1 · CI/CD gates · No CI pipeline · ×1

No CI pipeline — No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

Minor — 11 finding(s)

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

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 5 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Apply/ClubApplyView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Club/Detail/ClubDetailView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/AffiliationCell.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/CreateClubCell.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Club/MyClub/Component/MyApplyCell.swift. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×1

Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md — The installation instructions are sparse: mise setup and the make generate command are described, but there is no build/run/usage example showing how to execute the app after provisioning profiles are set. Add a short 'How to Run It' section that walks through running DodamDodam with the debug provisioning profile.

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

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 39 of 85 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 85 of the 372 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: Projects/Feature/Source/ChildrenManage/ChildrenManageView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Division/Detail/DivisionDetailView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Auth/Register/RegisterViewModel.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/All/Setting/EditMemberInfo/EditMemberInfoView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Approve/ApproveNightStudyView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Out/Component/OutSleepingCell.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/NightStudy/ManageNightStudy/Ban/ManageNightStudyView.swift, Projects/Feature/Source/Division/DivisionViewModel.swift (and 31 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

D9 · Test Distribution · No tests found · ×1

No tests found — No test suite could be collected — no discoverable tests to count. If this repository does test, wiring the suite to a framework a runner can collect (XCTest or Swift Testing) is what makes it countable here; a pipeline step that invokes a runner is not evidence on its own, because a runner over an empty suite passes. Tests written as plain executables or shell/PowerShell harnesses are not collectible this way and are not scored here.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

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

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

M3 · Folder & project structure · No src/ separation · ×1

No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

M3 · Folder & project structure · No tests/ separation · ×1

No tests/ separation — No test surface was found — this check walked the tree for authored source in the languages it models (`.cs`, `.vb`, `.fs`, `.java`, `.kt`, `.scala`, `.py`, `.php`, `.rb`, `.ex`, `.exs`, `.go`, `.erl`, `.hrl`, `.swift`, `.dart`, `.rs`, `.ts`, `.tsx`, `.mts`, `.cts`) and found none of it test-shaped. ★ `.js`, `.jsx`, `.mjs` and `.cjs` are NOT in that walk, so a Jest or Mocha suite written in plain JavaScript is invisible to it and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than moving anything. Otherwise there are no tests here to separate from production code, so the folder question hasn't been reached yet.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×1

README/code drift — README claims iOS app with App Store link but the repository contains no iOS project — searched for: `iOS app`, `App Store link`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

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

Minor — 4 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×4

Outdated: realm-swift — `realm-swift` is resolved at 20.0.0, but 20.0.5 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/realm/realm-swift within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update realm-swift` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swiftui-cached-async-image — `swiftui-cached-async-image` is resolved at 2.1.1, but 2.1.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/lorenzofiamingo/swiftui-cached-async-image within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swiftui-cached-async-image` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swiftui-introspect — `swiftui-introspect` is resolved at 1.3.0, but 1.4.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/siteline/SwiftUI-Introspect within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swiftui-introspect` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swinject — `swinject` is resolved at 2.9.1, but 2.10.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/Swinject/Swinject.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swinject` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.

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	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-269a18c3a6274b8ea497b1bbc33af527/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	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-269a18c3a6274b8ea497b1bbc33af527/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	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 .	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	—
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.	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.	—
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.	—
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.	—
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.	—
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.	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	—

Run 01a0c0df-fe05-73e8-9b70-f69010117c6e · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Team-B1ND/dodamdodam-Ios

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 91% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 90% · Strong ·

At a glance — Maturity · 43% · Weak · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 22% · Critical · gated by D8, D9, P1, P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

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