Public report of Wagnard/display-drivers-uninstaller, published 26 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 26 October 2026, 16:43 UTC · Survey ID cd_55a13edc908f4cf1a57766a0be654a1d
Wagnard/display-drivers-uninstaller
Measured 26 October 2026, 16:41 UTC, at code version b92f7a8
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
Test distribution is not measured: No automated tests.
CAI scoreWeak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Down 2 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A medium codebase: 27,986 lines of product code in 1 project, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 20
Findings by how serious they are
63 critical227 serious22 minor
43 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
26 October 2026, 16:41 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
34of 34 dimensions measured by tools.
301of 312 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 11 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
34dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 27,986 lines of product code in 1 project.
Wagnard/display-drivers-uninstaller falls short of our standard for production, in part because the project has no automated tests. It scores 38 out of 100 and is rated Weak, and none of its 63 critical findings concern security.
Production Readiness, at 20, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step is adding automated tests, worth about 15 points. Recording design decisions is another step, worth about 8 points. Raising Production Readiness to 70 would lift the score to about 53.
The project has no automated tests, so a change can break it without warning. Sixty-one errors are caught and ignored, so failures can go unnoticed, and one part of the code is no longer understood by anyone working on it. Adding automated tests, handling or logging the ignored errors and having someone learn the forgotten files would close these risks.
The product code is 27,986 lines, about €25,000 to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding
This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 12 October 2026, and is gone from this one.
€8,300 to €42,000, for 138 to 439 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.7 at a score of 38. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Medium: 27,986 lines of product code
What it is not
Not a quotation: nobody has offered to build it for that. Not a valuation: it says nothing about what the business is worth. Not a certified figure: no professional has signed it as one.
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
Raises the score by about 15 points · Low effort · Code Coverage
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
Raises the score by about 15 points · Low effort · Test Distribution
3
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 8 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €25,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 20 (Critical). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 15 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 Code Coverage findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost
Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 5.7 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 6% to 13% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 4,891 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 19,836 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 2.9 to 17.3 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.
How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change, never less than 2% to 5% and never more than 40% to 60% in all; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.
Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history
What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
9 modules, with 9 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 4 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version1 uses Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32, so a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 can break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version1, while a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version1 can't break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
9 pairs of types, where a type in Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2 uses a type in Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.
Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2 uses Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler, so a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler can break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2, while a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2 can't break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.
Position
Below the diagonal: Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
5→7 Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2 uses Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32part of a loop✕
Connections
1 pair of types, where a type in Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2 uses a type in Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.
Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2 uses Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32, so a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 can break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2, while a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2 can't break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 uses Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version1, so a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version1 can break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32, while a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 can't break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version1.
Position
Below the diagonal: Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 uses Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2, so a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2 can break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32, while a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 can't break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.TaskScheduler.Version2.
Position
Below the diagonal: Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
7→8 Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 uses Display_Driver_Uninstallerpart of a loop✕
Connections
4 pairs of types, where a type in Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 uses a type in Display_Driver_Uninstaller.
Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 uses Display_Driver_Uninstaller, so a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller can break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32, while a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 can't break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
Display_Driver_Uninstaller uses Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32, so a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32 can break Display_Driver_Uninstaller, while a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller can't break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.
Position
Below the diagonal: Display_Driver_Uninstaller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.ACL uses Display_Driver_Uninstaller, so a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller can break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.ACL, while a change to Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.ACL can't break Display_Driver_Uninstaller.
Position
Below the diagonal: Display_Driver_Uninstaller.Win32.ACL uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health · 61% · Adequate · gated by D1, D2 ·
Begin by establishing a CI workflow to build and test on every push, and immediately address the lack of automated tests and test distribution to ensure code changes are validated. Simultaneously, introduce architectural decision records to document key design choices and improve long-term maintainability. Finally, target the five high-churn, high-complexity files, starting with GPUCleanup.vb, AppSettings.vb, and AppLaunchOptions.vb, to reduce technical debt and prevent future regressions.
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.
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
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 — 63
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 — 227
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 — 22
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 43
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. 34 of 34 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. 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 — 34 dimensions across the health lenses
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, 301 of 312 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
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.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: `dotnet list package` exited 1 with no output.
D14 License Compliance — 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. License scan produced no result — the tool ran but wrote no JSON report (no package reference resolved); the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (13 contributor(s) across 1112 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 86% of the history; the other 12 hold 1.2% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Msbuild failed when processing the file 'display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller.vbproj' with message: The task "ResolveComReference" is not supported on the .NET Core version of MSBuild. Please use the .NET Framework version of MSBuild. See https://aka.ms/msbuild/MSB4803 for further details.
D18 Solution Shape — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. `dotnet build` reported 1 error(s), and the diagnostics it printed were: MSB4803: The task "ResolveComReference" is not supported on the .NET Core version of MSBuild. Please use the .NET Framework version of MSBuild. See https://aka.ms/msbuild/MSB4803 for further details.. None of them is a .NET compiler diagnostic, which is the only signal this check reads as "the code does not compile", so the failure is recorded as a build-environment gap rather than a code defect. The usual causes are a project that targets a platform this run cannot build (a Windows-only target framework on a Linux worker) or a build step that shells out to a tool the image does not carry. Solution Shape is scored on structure and is NOT capped. Semantic analysis is independent of this build and covers every project that loaded — but a project whose restore did not complete has no resolved references, so treat its results as absent rather than clean. ★ The reach of that test, stated so this classification can be checked rather than taken on trust: it reads the C# (CS), Visual Basic (BC) and F# (FS) compiler series, and treats SDK, NuGet-restore and MSBuild codes (NETSDK, NU, MSB) as evidence that the build did not run rather than that the code is broken — read the diagnostics named above and judge for yourself. You can widen what we reach: if this build is meant to run off its own platform, without host tooling we do not carry, the diagnostics named above are what stopped it. If it is deliberately platform-bound — a Windows-only desktop product, say — there is nothing to do here: the note records our reach, not a defect in your build.
D19 Documentation 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. This kind did not reach the 95 % precision gate in three adjudicated runs (docs/plans/deterministic-engine/adjudication/D19-sample3-v3.md), so by the pre-registered fallback it publishes no row until a re-measurement shows it does. The candidates are counted here, not reported as findings, and the score does not include them.
D21 Naming 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. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D39 IL Efficiency — 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. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's own build of this repository failed for an ENVIRONMENT reason (exit 1) — MSBuild's engine or the CLR gave up, or our image does not carry the SDK band/targeting pack this repository needs. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo, and it is not a statement that this repository fails to build. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Subject: a native UI project (display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml). The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, an npm dev script, a web service's own toolchain entry point (cargo, go, dotnet, Python, Spring Boot), or an Android app's own Gradle wrapper (run on an emulator); an Apple or Flutter app needs a host it lacks. None applied, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. No function of a language this check models was read, so there was no async code to examine. That is a limit of the analyzer on this repository, not a finding about it.
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.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 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.
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.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, Java/Kotlin/Scala, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Swift, Erlang, Elixir and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and none of those languages was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Swift and Dart syntax only, and no C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Swift or Dart was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
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.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value is measured as redundancy only: a comment that repeats its code's words is found, but a paraphrase in other words, a vague comment, or one the code contradicts is not, and whether a comment is valuable is not claimed. Comments in other scripts or languages, and outside C#, are not judged.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
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.
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.
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.
68 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was GPUCleanup.Start at 354. A further 2 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being AppLaunchOptions.LoadArgs at 59 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLaunchOptions.vb (AppLaunchOptions.LoadArgs at 59). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
+ 63 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 9 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with GPUCleanup.Start (cyclomatic 354), CleanupEngine.Installer (cyclomatic 191), GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaFolders (cyclomatic 168). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 9 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 2.0 to about 4.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
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.
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.
+ 83 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 88 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with GPUCleanup.Start (cognitive 1193), CleanupEngine.Installer (cognitive 1131), CleanupEngine.Clsidleftover (cognitive 552). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 88 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 2.0 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
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 Classes8.0 / 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.
Resolve the 28 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with GPUCleanup.vb (9), SetupAPI.vb (7), Application.xaml.vb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (28 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with GPUCleanup.vb, SetupAPI.vb, FrmMain.xaml.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with SetupAPI.vb, FrmMain.xaml.vb, GPUCleanup.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 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.
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.
8 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted.
+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with GPUCleanup.vb, DebugWindow.xaml.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with SetupAPI.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (27–28 lines × 4) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with SetupAPI.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
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.
Resolve the 3 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with FrmMain.xaml.vb, DebugWindow.xaml.vb, AppSettings.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 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.
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.
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.
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.
Resolve the 5 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with GPUCleanup.vb, AppSettings.vb, AppLaunchOptions.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
67 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 27986 LoC in the .NET projects (2.1/KLoC) → score 5.9. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped.
Resolve the 61 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with GPUCleanup.vb (33), CleanupEngine.vb (10), DDUSafeBootService.vb (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (61 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AUDIOCleanup.vb (3), AppLaunchOptions.vb, FrmMain.xaml.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 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.
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
1 projects, 38 source files, 27986 hand-written lines of code (27986 production / 0 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), plus 196 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 0 inter-project edges (build NOT measured — `dotnet build` did not complete in the analyzer, so the build half of this dimension is unmeasured rather than failed: the score above rests on structure alone and is not capped. The diagnostics that stopped it are named under Limitations.)
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).
Method: Every inline C# comment compared word by word with the identifiers, literals and constructs of the code it annotates (taken from the syntax); a comment whose words that code already contains is redundant, as are closing-brace labels and generator template text. Comments giving a reason or a reference are kept; other scripts and languages are not judged. Deterministic, exhaustive, advisory.
doc comments repeat the namesdisplay-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppPaths.vb:82
What to do
Resolve the 13 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with SetupAPI.vb (3), AUDIOCleanup.vb (2), DebugWindow.xaml.vb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.
Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
45 % of calls cross a namespace and 0 % go through an interface, but 99 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
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.
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).
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.
2 of 32 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/TaskScheduler.vb. Counted over 32 of the 38 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with TaskScheduler.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Converters.vb. — 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.
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.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
~28k production LoC (220 types) across 1 project(s) / 9 namespace(s) with no recognised architectural style or layering — at this size, deliberate module boundaries would help. No DDD/clean/vertical-slice/CQRS/transaction-script organisation was detected — code is likely organised ad hoc, which makes change and onboarding harder as it grows.
What to do
Introduce deliberate module boundaries — by feature (vertical slices) if your team prefers, or by layer (domain/application/infrastructure). Even splitting into a few cohesive projects with a clear dependency direction would help.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
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.
23 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.
What to do
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying 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.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.
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 your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
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.
What to do
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?
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?
P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
For more than a log file, an `ActivitySource`/`EventSource` the user can switch on gives you a structured trace to attach to a bug report. A health-check endpoint does not apply here: nothing orchestrates or load-balances a binary the user launches.
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 a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — 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: a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — 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.
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.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
What to do
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 28 use(s) across 32,813 production line(s) (~0.9/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Visual Basic: on hot paths, work through Span(Of T)/Memory(Of T) (AsSpan/AsMemory) instead of copies, rent buffers from ArrayPool(Of T), return ValueTask from completions that are usually synchronous, write through IBufferWriter(Of T), and presize List/StringBuilder/Dictionary.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
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.
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 — 78 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
AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — 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.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
D14 License Compliance — Licence collector did not produce a result
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D19 Documentation Quality — D19 withholds "Documentation: empty section": 2 candidate(s) were measured and not published.
D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; Visual Basic not measured.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — single shared-core project — no cross-context coupling to assess
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
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 — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
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 — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
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
M4 Documentation accuracy — Not applicable: the 3 current-state document(s) make no claim of a kind M4 checks.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a BenchmarkDotNet reference in an .fsproj or .vbproj, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
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
X10 Duplicated predicate — 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.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 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
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AUDIOCleanup.vb:182— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AUDIOCleanup.vb:219— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AUDIOCleanup.vb:240— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppPaths.vb:184— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:1116— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:1136— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:1306— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1689— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1696— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1817— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1824— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1845— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1894— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1901— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1922— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:3652— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:3657— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DDUSafeBootService.vb:23— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DDUSafeBootService.vb:94— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DDUSafeBootService.vb:156— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DDUSafeBootService.vb:177— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:751— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmSystemRestore.xaml.vb:118— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:1774— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:2990— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
Orphaned knowledge display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/TaskScheduler.vb:1— No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
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 (xUnit, NUnit or MSTest), and run it in CI so the gap cannot reopen.
MethodTooLong: GPUCleanup.CleanNvidia display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:3868— MethodTooLong — CleanNvidia runs 1736 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1636 over it, 17.36× 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: GPUCleanup.CleanAmd display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:1307— MethodTooLong — CleanAmd runs 1267 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1167 over it, 12.67× 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: GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaFolders display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:6233— MethodTooLong — CleanNvidiaFolders runs 932 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 832 over it, 9.32× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: GPUCleanup.Start display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:20— MethodTooLong — Start runs 925 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 825 over it, 9.25× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: GPUCleanup.CleanAmdFolders display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:2927— MethodTooLong — CleanAmdFolders runs 634 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 534 over it, 6.34× 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: GPUCleanup.CleanIntel display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:7231— MethodTooLong — CleanIntel runs 616 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 516 over it, 6.16× 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: GPUCleanup.CleanVulkan display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8462— MethodTooLong — CleanVulkan runs 367 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 267 over it, 3.67× 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: GPUCleanup.CleanIntelFolders display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8224— MethodTooLong — CleanIntelFolders runs 219 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 119 over it, 2.19× 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: GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaCache display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:6019— MethodTooLong — CleanNvidiaCache runs 205 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 105 over it, 2.05× 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: Application.Application_Startup display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:561— MethodTooLong — Application_Startup runs 173 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 73 over it, 1.73× 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: SetupAPI.TEST_EnableDevice display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1779— MethodTooLong — TEST_EnableDevice runs 164 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 64 over it, 1.64× 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: SetupAPI.TEST_GetDevices display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1590— MethodTooLong — TEST_GetDevices runs 162 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 62 over it, 1.62× 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: AppSettings.Load display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb:919— MethodTooLong — Load runs 154 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 54 over it, 1.54× 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: Application.ApplyWindowTheme display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:123— MethodTooLong — ApplyWindowTheme runs 154 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 54 over it, 1.54× 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: SetupAPI.GetDriverDetails display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3419— MethodTooLong — GetDriverDetails 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: FileIO.DeleteInternal display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb:402— MethodTooLong — DeleteInternal runs 140 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 40 over it, 1.40× 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: DebugWindow.CopyCommand display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:245— MethodTooLong — CopyCommand runs 139 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 39 over it, 1.39× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: SetupAPI.EnableDevice display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1992— MethodTooLong — EnableDevice runs 139 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 39 over it, 1.39× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: AppLog.OpenLog display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLog.vb:225— MethodTooLong — OpenLog runs 132 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.32× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: FrmMain.GetGPUDetails display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:1029— MethodTooLong — GetGPUDetails runs 130 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.30× 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: SetupAPI.GetDevicesByHID display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2436— MethodTooLong — GetDevicesByHID runs 129 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.29× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: SetupAPI.GetDevicesByCompatibleID display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2282— MethodTooLong — GetDevicesByCompatibleID runs 125 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 25 over it, 1.25× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Registry.FixRights display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ACL.vb:1081— MethodTooLong — FixRights runs 123 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.23× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Languages.ReadFile display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:398— MethodTooLong — ReadFile runs 121 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 21 over it, 1.21× 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: Languages.CheckLanguageFileForErrors display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:734— MethodTooLong — CheckLanguageFileForErrors 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.
FileTooLong: Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb— FileTooLong — 7730 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 7230 over it, 15.46× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Win32/SetupAPI.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb— FileTooLong — 2974 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2474 over it, 5.95× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb— FileTooLong — 1274 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 774 over it, 2.55× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb— FileTooLong — 1075 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 575 over it, 2.15× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb— FileTooLong — 924 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 424 over it, 1.85× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb— FileTooLong — 749 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 249 over it, 1.50× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Win32/ACL.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ACL.vb— FileTooLong — 686 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 186 over it, 1.37× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb— FileTooLong — 643 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 143 over it, 1.29× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb— FileTooLong — 542 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 42 over it, 1.08× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
TodoComment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AUDIOCleanup.vb:7— 'todo — 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 display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AUDIOCleanup.vb:112— 'Todo — 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 display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AUDIOCleanup.vb:171— ' Todo: more precise. — 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 display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLaunchOptions.vb:194— ' TODO: Add cmdline args for those RemoveXXXX properties — 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 display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:985— 'If System.Diagnostics.Debugger.IsAttached Then 'TODO: remove when tested — 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 display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:573— 'TODO : Parent.ChildDevices.Length < 1 — 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.
Hotspot: display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:20— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb changed 31 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 354 in GPUCleanup.Start at line 20. 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 25 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 16:57:11 -04:00' --until='2026-10-23 16:57:11 -04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb:919— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 67 in AppSettings.Load at line 919. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 16:57:11 -04:00' --until='2026-10-23 16:57:11 -04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLaunchOptions.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLaunchOptions.vb:104— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLaunchOptions.vb changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 59 in AppLaunchOptions.LoadArgs at line 104. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 16:57:11 -04:00' --until='2026-10-23 16:57:11 -04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLaunchOptions.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2737— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 41 in SetupAPI.UninstallDevice at line 2737. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 16:57:11 -04:00' --until='2026-10-23 16:57:11 -04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:561— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 45 in Application.Application_Startup at line 561. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 16:57:11 -04:00' --until='2026-10-23 16:57:11 -04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb`: 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.
TooManyMethods: SetupAPI display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb— TooManyMethods — 3232 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 68 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 38 over it, 2.27× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FrmMain display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb— TooManyMethods — 1261 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 65 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 35 over it, 2.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: GPUCleanup display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb— TooManyMethods — 7718 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 49 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 19 over it, 1.63× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Application display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb— TooManyMethods — 1024 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FileIO display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb— TooManyMethods — 634 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: AppSettings display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb— ClassTooLong — 871 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 8 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 471 over it, 2.18× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Languages display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb— ClassTooLong — 743 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 22 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 343 over it, 1.86× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: DebugWindow display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb— ClassTooLong — 515 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 27 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 115 over it, 1.29× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Low cohesion: FrmMain (LCOM4 7) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:31— FrmMain's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: DebugWindow (LCOM4 5) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:8— DebugWindow'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: AppSettings (LCOM4 4) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb:80— AppSettings'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.
Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8787— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8787-8805 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8809-8826 — 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 `display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8787` 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 (18–19 lines × 2) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:545— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:545-563 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:568-585 — 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.
Appears unstructured (no recognised architecture) — ~28k production LoC (220 types) across 1 project(s) / 9 namespace(s) with no recognised architectural style or layering — at this size, deliberate module boundaries would help. No DDD/clean/vertical-slice/CQRS/transaction-script organisation was detected — code is likely organised ad hoc, which makes change and onboarding harder as it grows.
GPUCleanup.Start (cyclomatic 354) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:20— GPUCleanup.Start has cyclomatic complexity 354 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.Installer (cyclomatic 191) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1455— CleanupEngine.Installer has cyclomatic complexity 191 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaFolders (cyclomatic 168) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:6233— GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaFolders has cyclomatic complexity 168 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.CleanVulkan (cyclomatic 167) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8462— GPUCleanup.CleanVulkan has cyclomatic complexity 167 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.Clsidleftover (cyclomatic 123) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:2699— CleanupEngine.Clsidleftover has cyclomatic complexity 123 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.CleanNvidia (cyclomatic 105) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:3868— GPUCleanup.CleanNvidia has cyclomatic complexity 105 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.Cleandriverstore (cyclomatic 95) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:3679— CleanupEngine.Cleandriverstore has cyclomatic complexity 95 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaCache (cyclomatic 77) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:6019— GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaCache has cyclomatic complexity 77 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
AppSettings.Load (cyclomatic 67) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb:919— AppSettings.Load has cyclomatic complexity 67 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
AppLog.OpenLog (cyclomatic 52) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLog.vb:225— AppLog.OpenLog has cyclomatic complexity 52 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SetupAPI.TEST_GetDevices (cyclomatic 52) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1590— SetupAPI.TEST_GetDevices has cyclomatic complexity 52 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Languages.CheckLanguageFileForErrors (cyclomatic 52) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:734— Languages.CheckLanguageFileForErrors has cyclomatic complexity 52 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DebugWindow.CopyCommand (cyclomatic 48) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:245— DebugWindow.CopyCommand has cyclomatic complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Languages.ReadFile (cyclomatic 48) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:398— Languages.ReadFile has cyclomatic complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LogEntry.AddDevices (cyclomatic 47) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/LogEntry.vb:209— LogEntry.AddDevices has cyclomatic complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Application.Application_Startup (cyclomatic 45) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:561— Application.Application_Startup has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FrmMain.GetGPUDetails (cyclomatic 42) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:1029— FrmMain.GetGPUDetails has cyclomatic complexity 42 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SetupAPI.TEST_EnableDevice (cyclomatic 41) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1779— SetupAPI.TEST_EnableDevice has cyclomatic complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SetupAPI.UninstallDevice (cyclomatic 41) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2737— SetupAPI.UninstallDevice has cyclomatic complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FileIO.DeleteInternal (cyclomatic 40) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb:402— FileIO.DeleteInternal has cyclomatic complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FrmMain.GPUIdentify (cyclomatic 39) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:171— FrmMain.GPUIdentify has cyclomatic complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SetupAPI.EnableDevice (cyclomatic 35) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1992— SetupAPI.EnableDevice has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SetupAPI.GetDevicesByHID (cyclomatic 35) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2436— SetupAPI.GetDevicesByHID has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SetupAPI.GetDevices (cyclomatic 34) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2594— SetupAPI.GetDevices has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DebugWindow.Filter (cyclomatic 34) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:167— DebugWindow.Filter has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.RemoveCLSIDInstance (cyclomatic 32) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:3278— CleanupEngine.RemoveCLSIDInstance has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.CleanIntel (cyclomatic 32) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:7231— GPUCleanup.CleanIntel has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SetupAPI.GetDevicesByCompatibleID (cyclomatic 31) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2282— SetupAPI.GetDevicesByCompatibleID has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FrmMain.FrmMain_ContentRendered (cyclomatic 31) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:600— FrmMain.FrmMain_ContentRendered has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Registry.FixRights (cyclomatic 30) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ACL.vb:1081— Registry.FixRights has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FrmMain.EnableDriverSearch (cyclomatic 30) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:1269— FrmMain.EnableDriverSearch has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
AUDIOCleanup.Start (cyclomatic 27) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AUDIOCleanup.vb:11— AUDIOCleanup.Start has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.RemoveAppx1809Async (cyclomatic 27) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:131— CleanupEngine.RemoveAppx1809Async has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SetupAPI.UpdateDeviceInf (cyclomatic 27) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3032— SetupAPI.UpdateDeviceInf has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.Old_TemporaryNvidiaSpeedup (cyclomatic 26) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:3813— GPUCleanup.Old_TemporaryNvidiaSpeedup has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.RemoveSharedDlls (cyclomatic 24) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:85— CleanupEngine.RemoveSharedDlls has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.RemoveAppxPre1809Async (cyclomatic 24) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:746— CleanupEngine.RemoveAppxPre1809Async has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FileIO.GetFilesToDeleteInternal (cyclomatic 24) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb:595— FileIO.GetFilesToDeleteInternal has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SetupAPI.RemoveInf (cyclomatic 24) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2892— SetupAPI.RemoveInf has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FileIO.GetFileNames (cyclomatic 23) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb:714— FileIO.GetFileNames has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
AppSettings.UpdateWinText (cyclomatic 23) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb:657— AppSettings.UpdateWinText has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SetupAPI.GetDriverDetails (cyclomatic 23) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3419— SetupAPI.GetDriverDetails has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
ServiceInstaller.StopService (cyclomatic 22) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ServiceInstaller.vb:50— ServiceInstaller.StopService has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.RemoveUninstallEntries (cyclomatic 21) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1396— CleanupEngine.RemoveUninstallEntries has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FileIO.GetDirNames (cyclomatic 21) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb:823— FileIO.GetDirNames has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.CleanAmdCache (cyclomatic 21) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:2866— GPUCleanup.CleanAmdCache has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FileSystem.FixFileSecurity (cyclomatic 21) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ACL.vb:789— FileSystem.FixFileSecurity has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.Deletesubregkey (cyclomatic 20) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:24— CleanupEngine.Deletesubregkey has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.InterfaceRemovalWithValue (cyclomatic 20) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1278— CleanupEngine.InterfaceRemovalWithValue has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.CleanAmd (cyclomatic 20) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:1307— GPUCleanup.CleanAmd has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
AppLog.SaveLog (cyclomatic 20) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLog.vb:123— AppLog.SaveLog has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.RemoveStaleInstalledPfns (cyclomatic 18) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:525— CleanupEngine.RemoveStaleInstalledPfns has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.CleanAmdFolders (cyclomatic 18) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:2927— GPUCleanup.CleanAmdFolders has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.CleanEnvironementPath (cyclomatic 18) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:3621— GPUCleanup.CleanEnvironementPath has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.Checkamdkmpfd (cyclomatic 18) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:3689— GPUCleanup.Checkamdkmpfd has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.CleanIntelFolders (cyclomatic 18) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8224— GPUCleanup.CleanIntelFolders has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
AppPaths.New.ctor (cyclomatic 18) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppPaths.vb:155— AppPaths.New.ctor has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LogEntry.AddException (cyclomatic 18) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/LogEntry.vb:349— LogEntry.AddException has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Languages.TranslateControl (cyclomatic 18) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:296— Languages.TranslateControl has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.Cleanserviceprocess (cyclomatic 17) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1960— CleanupEngine.Cleanserviceprocess has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CleanupEngine.PnpLockdownFiles (cyclomatic 17) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:2333— CleanupEngine.PnpLockdownFiles has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Application.HandleBootModeStartup (cyclomatic 17) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:939— Application.HandleBootModeStartup has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: Application.ApplyWindowTheme (cyclomatic 19) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
GPUCleanup.CleanQualcommCache (cyclomatic 16) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8066— GPUCleanup.CleanQualcommCache has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (GPUCleanup.CleanIntelCache) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
GPUCleanup.CleanIntelCache (cyclomatic 16) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8177— GPUCleanup.CleanIntelCache has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (GPUCleanup.CleanQualcommCache) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
Tools.PreferredUILanguages (cyclomatic 16) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Tools.vb:122— Tools.PreferredUILanguages has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Application.GetOSVersion (cyclomatic 16) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:889— Application.GetOSVersion has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: Application.ApplyWindowTheme (cyclomatic 19) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
FrmMain.FrmMain_Loaded (cyclomatic 16) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:481— FrmMain.FrmMain_Loaded has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Languages.GetTranslation (cyclomatic 16) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:122— Languages.GetTranslation has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GPUCleanup.Start (cognitive 1193) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:20— GPUCleanup.Start has cognitive complexity 1193 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.Installer (cognitive 1131) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1455— CleanupEngine.Installer has cognitive complexity 1131 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.Clsidleftover (cognitive 552) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:2699— CleanupEngine.Clsidleftover has cognitive complexity 552 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.CleanVulkan (cognitive 499) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8462— GPUCleanup.CleanVulkan has cognitive complexity 499 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.Cleandriverstore (cognitive 329) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:3679— CleanupEngine.Cleandriverstore has cognitive complexity 329 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Languages.CheckLanguageFileForErrors (cognitive 308) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:734— Languages.CheckLanguageFileForErrors has cognitive complexity 308 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaCache (cognitive 300) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:6019— GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaCache has cognitive complexity 300 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaFolders (cognitive 166) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:6233— GPUCleanup.CleanNvidiaFolders has cognitive complexity 166 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AppLog.OpenLog (cognitive 165) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLog.vb:225— AppLog.OpenLog has cognitive complexity 165 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.TEST_GetDevices (cognitive 141) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1590— SetupAPI.TEST_GetDevices has cognitive complexity 141 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.RemoveCLSIDInstance (cognitive 140) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:3278— CleanupEngine.RemoveCLSIDInstance has cognitive complexity 140 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LogEntry.AddDevices (cognitive 124) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/LogEntry.vb:209— LogEntry.AddDevices has cognitive complexity 124 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Languages.ReadFile (cognitive 120) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:398— Languages.ReadFile has cognitive complexity 120 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FrmMain.GPUIdentify (cognitive 116) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:171— FrmMain.GPUIdentify has cognitive complexity 116 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FileIO.DeleteInternal (cognitive 111) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb:402— FileIO.DeleteInternal has cognitive complexity 111 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.CleanNvidia (cognitive 108) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:3868— GPUCleanup.CleanNvidia has cognitive complexity 108 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FrmMain.GetGPUDetails (cognitive 92) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:1029— FrmMain.GetGPUDetails has cognitive complexity 92 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.CleanEnvironementPath (cognitive 87) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:3621— GPUCleanup.CleanEnvironementPath has cognitive complexity 87 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DebugWindow.Filter (cognitive 87) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:167— DebugWindow.Filter has cognitive complexity 87 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.GetDevicesByHID (cognitive 86) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2436— SetupAPI.GetDevicesByHID has cognitive complexity 86 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.GetDevicesByCompatibleID (cognitive 75) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2282— SetupAPI.GetDevicesByCompatibleID has cognitive complexity 75 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DebugWindow.CopyCommand (cognitive 74) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:245— DebugWindow.CopyCommand has cognitive complexity 74 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.PnpLockdownFiles (cognitive 70) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:2333— CleanupEngine.PnpLockdownFiles has cognitive complexity 70 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.GetDevices (cognitive 70) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2594— SetupAPI.GetDevices has cognitive complexity 70 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.Checkamdkmpfd (cognitive 69) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:3689— GPUCleanup.Checkamdkmpfd has cognitive complexity 69 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FrmMain.EnableDriverSearch (cognitive 67) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:1269— FrmMain.EnableDriverSearch has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.UninstallDevice (cognitive 63) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2737— SetupAPI.UninstallDevice has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Application.Application_Startup (cognitive 63) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:561— Application.Application_Startup has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.RemoveAppx1809Async (cognitive 62) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:131— CleanupEngine.RemoveAppx1809Async has cognitive complexity 62 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.CleanAmdCache (cognitive 61) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:2866— GPUCleanup.CleanAmdCache has cognitive complexity 61 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FrmMain.FrmMain_ContentRendered (cognitive 61) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:600— FrmMain.FrmMain_ContentRendered has cognitive complexity 61 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.TEST_EnableDevice (cognitive 60) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1779— SetupAPI.TEST_EnableDevice has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FileIO.GetFileNames (cognitive 58) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb:714— FileIO.GetFileNames has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.RemoveAppxPre1809Async (cognitive 57) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:746— CleanupEngine.RemoveAppxPre1809Async has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FileIO.GetDirNames (cognitive 54) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb:823— FileIO.GetDirNames has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.RemoveSharedDlls (cognitive 53) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:85— CleanupEngine.RemoveSharedDlls has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.EnableDevice (cognitive 53) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1992— SetupAPI.EnableDevice has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.Old_TemporaryNvidiaSpeedup (cognitive 52) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:3813— GPUCleanup.Old_TemporaryNvidiaSpeedup has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Registry.FixRights (cognitive 49) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ACL.vb:1081— Registry.FixRights has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.GetDriverDetails (cognitive 47) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3419— SetupAPI.GetDriverDetails has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.RemoveUninstallEntries (cognitive 46) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1396— CleanupEngine.RemoveUninstallEntries has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FileIO.GetFilesToDeleteInternal (cognitive 46) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FileIO.vb:595— FileIO.GetFilesToDeleteInternal has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AppSettings.Load (cognitive 46) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb:919— AppSettings.Load has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.CleanQualcommCache (cognitive 44) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8066— GPUCleanup.CleanQualcommCache has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (GPUCleanup.CleanIntelCache) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
GPUCleanup.CleanIntelCache (cognitive 44) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:8177— GPUCleanup.CleanIntelCache has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (GPUCleanup.CleanQualcommCache) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
AUDIOCleanup.Start (cognitive 43) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AUDIOCleanup.vb:11— AUDIOCleanup.Start has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.GetSiblings (cognitive 42) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3639— SetupAPI.GetSiblings has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AppLog.SaveLog (cognitive 40) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppLog.vb:123— AppLog.SaveLog has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.UpdateDeviceInf (cognitive 39) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3032— SetupAPI.UpdateDeviceInf has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
TaskSchedulerControl.GetAllTasks (cognitive 39) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/TaskScheduler.vb:60— TaskSchedulerControl.GetAllTasks has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Languages.GetChildren (cognitive 37) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:246— Languages.GetChildren has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.RemoveMonitorConfiguration (cognitive 36) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:2230— CleanupEngine.RemoveMonitorConfiguration has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.Checkpcieroot (cognitive 35) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:3730— GPUCleanup.Checkpcieroot has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.Deletesubregkey (cognitive 34) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:24— CleanupEngine.Deletesubregkey has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.RemoveInf (cognitive 34) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2892— SetupAPI.RemoveInf has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AppPaths.New.ctor (cognitive 33) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppPaths.vb:155— AppPaths.New.ctor has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LogEntry.AddException (cognitive 32) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/LogEntry.vb:349— LogEntry.AddException has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Languages.TranslateControl (cognitive 31) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:296— Languages.TranslateControl has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.RemoveStaleInstalledPfns (cognitive 29) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:525— CleanupEngine.RemoveStaleInstalledPfns has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.PrePnplockdownfiles (cognitive 29) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:2299— CleanupEngine.PrePnplockdownfiles has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.GetChild (cognitive 29) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3778— SetupAPI.GetChild has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.CleanIntel (cognitive 28) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:7231— GPUCleanup.CleanIntel has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Application.HandleBootModeStartup (cognitive 28) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:939— Application.HandleBootModeStartup has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.Cleanserviceprocess (cognitive 26) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1960— CleanupEngine.Cleanserviceprocess has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AppSettings.UpdateWinText (cognitive 26) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppSettings.vb:657— AppSettings.UpdateWinText has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ServiceInstaller.StopService (cognitive 26) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ServiceInstaller.vb:50— ServiceInstaller.StopService has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FrmLog.CopyValues (cognitive 25) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmLog.xaml.vb:281— FrmLog.CopyValues has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Languages.GetParentTranslation (cognitive 25) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:76— Languages.GetParentTranslation has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.UpdateDevicesByID (cognitive 24) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3186— SetupAPI.UpdateDevicesByID has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FrmMain.Testing2MenuItem_Click (cognitive 23) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:1448— FrmMain.Testing2MenuItem_Click has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CleanupEngine.InterfaceRemovalWithValue (cognitive 22) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1278— CleanupEngine.InterfaceRemovalWithValue has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FileSystem.FixFileSecurity (cognitive 22) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ACL.vb:789— FileSystem.FixFileSecurity has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tools.StrRemoveAny (cognitive 21) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Tools.vb:192— Tools.StrRemoveAny has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.RemoveChiendrensFromDevices (cognitive 20) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:1206— GPUCleanup.RemoveChiendrensFromDevices has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SetupAPI.GetAllDeviceParent (cognitive 20) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2174— SetupAPI.GetAllDeviceParent has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tools.FixBrokenPathIfNeeded (cognitive 20) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Tools.vb:320— Tools.FixBrokenPathIfNeeded has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Languages.GetTranslation (cognitive 20) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Language.vb:122— Languages.GetTranslation has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.CleanAmd (cognitive 19) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:1307— GPUCleanup.CleanAmd has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ImpersonateUser.TakeTokenInternal (cognitive 19) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ImpersonateLoggedOnUser.vb:25— ImpersonateUser.TakeTokenInternal has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FrmMain.InfoDriverSearch (cognitive 19) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:1333— FrmMain.InfoDriverSearch has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
GPUCleanup.CleanEmptyTaskDirectories (cognitive 18) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:5931— GPUCleanup.CleanEmptyTaskDirectories has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Inf.ComponentIDs.Get (cognitive 17) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Inf.vb:54— Inf.ComponentIDs.Get has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tools.PreferredUILanguages (cognitive 17) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Tools.vb:122— Tools.PreferredUILanguages has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Tools.StateChanged (cognitive 17) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Tools.vb:437— Tools.StateChanged has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Inf.New.ctor (cognitive 16) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Inf.vb:82— Inf.New.ctor has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Priviliges.AdjustToken (cognitive 16) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ACL.vb:425— Priviliges.AdjustToken has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ServiceInstaller.GetServiceStatus (cognitive 16) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ServiceInstaller.vb:170— ServiceInstaller.GetServiceStatus has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Application.GetOSVersion (cognitive 16) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Application.xaml.vb:889— Application.GetOSVersion has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1591— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1591-1776 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1784-1985 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2175-2279 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3187-3248 — 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.
Duplicated block (27–28 lines × 4) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1605— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1605-1631 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1796-1822 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2188-2214 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3193-3220 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1704— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1704-1721 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2236-2253 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:1722` calls `GetDriverDetails`, `GetDeviceStatus` and `display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2255` 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.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:179— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:179-192 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmMain.xaml.vb:229-241 — 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:50— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:50-59 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:65-74 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1805— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1805-1812 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1882-1889 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3280— display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3280-3288 | display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3296-3304 — 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.
M1 · Documentation (README)· README may be stale · ×1
README may be stale — 23 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AUDIOCleanup.vb:50— "Removing every children of the "Audio device"" repeats the code it sits on: 4 of its 4 words (removing, children, audio, device) are already in `Application.Log.AddMessage("SetupAPI: Removing childrens associated to the Audio device.")`. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AUDIOCleanup.vb:377— "Check if the device has child devices" repeats the code it sits on: 4 of its 4 words (check, device, child, devices) are already in `If device.ChildDevices IsNot Nothing AndAlso device.ChildDevices.Length > 0 Then`. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/CleanupEngine.vb:1956— "Return just the file name without extension" repeats the code it sits on: 5 of its 5 words (return, file, name, without, extension) are already in `Return System.IO.Path.GetFileNameWithoutExtension(exePart)`. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:34— "This call is required by the designer." is Visual Studio form constructor template text, left in place. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/DebugWindow.xaml.vb:38— "Add any initialization after the InitializeComponent() call." is Visual Studio form constructor template text, left in place. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmLog.xaml.vb:175— "This call is required by the designer." is Visual Studio form constructor template text, left in place. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/FrmLog.xaml.vb:180— "Add any initialization after the InitializeComponent() call." is Visual Studio form constructor template text, left in place. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/GPUCleanup.vb:559— 11 comments in this file only repeat the code they sit on (lines 559, 692, 714, 826, 940, 992, 1042, 1057, 1226, 1238, 5205), for example "Removing every children of the "Audio device"". Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/My Project/AssemblyInfo.vb:8— 7 comments in this file only repeat the code they sit on (lines 8, 12, 22, 32, 37, 44, 47), for example "General Information about an assembly is controlled through the following set of attributes. Change these attribute values to modify the information associated …". Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/ACL.vb:721— "Create a new DirectoryInfo object." repeats the code it sits on: 4 of its 5 words (create, new, directory, info) are already in `Dim dInfo As New DirectoryInfo(FileName)`. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:2959— "Fallback to SetupUninstallOEMInf" repeats the code it sits on: 4 of its 5 words (setup, uninstall, oem, inf) are already in `If Not SetupUninstallOEMInf(infName, If(force, SetupUOInfFlags.SUOI_FORCEDELETE, SetupUOInfFlags.NONE), IntPtr.Zero) The …`. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3482— "Set up property key" repeats the code it sits on: 3 of its 3 words (set, property, key) are already in `Dim propertyKey As New DEVPROPKEY()`. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
redundant comment display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Win32/SetupAPI.vb:3487— "Marshal IntPtr to SP_DEVINFO_DATA" repeats the code it sits on: 5 of its 6 words (marshal, ptr, sp, devinfo, data) are already in `Dim deviceInfoData As SP_DEVINFO_DATA = Marshal.PtrToStructure(Of SP_DEVINFO_DATA)(ptrDevInfo)`. Delete it, or replace it with what the code cannot say (why it is done here, a constraint, or a consequence).
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
Further orphaned files (smaller) — 1 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than raised one row each — most significant first: display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Converters.vb (2 orphaned of 32 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated, example/demo and scaffolding-template trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 32 of the 38 production source files in this repository met that bar). 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.
Orphaned file display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/Converters.vb:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
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 (xUnit, NUnit or MSTest) 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.
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.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — 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.
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.)
doc comments repeat the names display-driver-uninstaller/Display Driver Uninstaller/AppPaths.vb:82— 0 of 14 documented parameters and 25 of 474 summaries in `Display Driver Uninstaller` only repeat the member or parameter name (e.g. "System Drive ( "C:\" )" for `SystemDrive`). 2 documentation tag(s) are empty. Delete the restating tags, or add what the name does not say.
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.
nuget: not applicable — nuget: `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
0
—
Run 01a17917-0b0d-7d59-8d22-12e701141b52 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 63 · Warnings: 227 · Recommendations: 21 · Info: 1 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 26-10-2026 @ 16:41 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.