Yeachan-Heo/oh-My-Claudecode

What it measures: Whether the code respects its intended layering / architecture rules.

Method: Enforcement rung (Prevented/Verified/Documented) per checkable ADR via Roslyn, plus dependency cycles via the engine shared with D5/AX3. Deterministic, exact.

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

All 4 mechanizable ADR(s) are enforced: 3 by analyzers, 1 by tests. Dependency cycles not checked (no project-reference graph; where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d7_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

12601 test methods: 12399 unit, 190 integration, 0 BDD, 12 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 12601 `it`/`test` case(s) across 766 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

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

106 skipped (106 with a documented reason), 27 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 12584 tests.

What to do

1. Resolve the 27 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with setup-contracts-regression.test.ts (12), harbor-scenarios.test.ts (3), bridge-openclaw.test.ts (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (27 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

0 of 12 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 12 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 1 product package.json manifest(s). Its 18 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry. 1 of them publish no licence this pass can read on registry.npmjs.org — an absent field, `UNLICENSED`, or a `SEE LICENSE IN <file>` pointer into a tarball this pass does not download; that is missing data, not a violation, and none of them is charged. This repository publishes itself under MIT, which is its own choice and is not judged here. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's npm package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: src/team/runtime-v2.ts (37×238=8806); templates/hooks/pre-tool-use.mjs (65×64=4160); src/team/scaling.ts (13×230=2990) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: src/hooks/ralph/loop.ts (10 of 10 changes were fixes); scripts/lib/state-root.cjs (9 of 9 changes were fixes); scripts/lib/state-root.mjs (9 of 9 changes were fixes)

What to do

1. Resolve the 106 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with REDACTED (11), REDACTED (2), persistent-mode.mjs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (106 warning-level).
2. Resolve the 24 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with REDACTED (3), state-root.mjs (2), loop.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (24 warning-level).

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

109 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/graph/scheduler.ts. Counted over 494 of the 656 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

What to do

1. Resolve the 3 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
2. Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

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

7 deducted task-comment markers across 187637 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

What to do

1. Resolve the 7 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with installer.test.ts (3), REDACTED (2), continuation-enforcement.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
2. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

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

The repository's root README is a well-written marketing document that states the project (Oh-My-ClaudeCode), its core value proposition ('Don't learn Claude Code. Just use OMC'), and links to an external website for full documentation, plus a strong 'For Codex users' note. The benchmark/README.md documents the SWE-bench benchmark suite with clear one-time-setup, quick-test, and run_full_comparison scripts; it is complete within its scope (benchmark directory) and shows good structure. A few clipped architecture/design docs (Core Maintainers, Ambassadors, Design System stubs, .omc/skills README, Verified Results breakdown) are expected per-document clip discipline rather than defects. The repository's documentation is comprehensive and well-organized: the READMEs for each directory (e.g. seminar/screenshots/, templates/rules/) document their own directories rather than the root repo, while a dedicated docs/AGENTS.md serves as an overview of user and developer documentation with links to architecture, migration, compatibility, and design documents. The main architecture doc is clipped mid-sentence but its outline lists every section present in the visible text. This is a comprehensive project with strong focused documentation: the READMEs describe each directory's purpose and usage (e.g. CJK IME input issues, multi-agent orchestration oh-my-claudecode, MCP plugin compatibility), architecture/Docs markdown files cover design and implementation details, and every visible document has an outline listing its named sections. The content is well-organized with a clear table of contents for each file.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

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

Evaluated 5 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 7.7/10 (mixed — many ADRs miss context or consequences). 2 flagged with a specific gap.

What to do

1. Resolve the 1 Decision is a thin one-line statement with no context (why replace… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 03665-jev-degradation-contract.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
2. Resolve the 1 Decision is real but consequences/trade-offs are unstated finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 03671-script-side-judgment-channel.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

What it measures: Whether the code actually follows the decisions recorded in the project's ADRs.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature against ADRs plus a deterministic structural code summary; findings linked to repo-rooted ADR paths for traceability. Advisory.

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

2 conform / 0 violate across 5 ADRs.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d25_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

What to do

1. Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

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

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

121 finding(s): 0 critical, 56 high, 65 medium, 0 low. 39 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 53 file(s) — `benchmark/run_full_comparison.sh` (line 183), `benchmarks/shared/scorer.ts` (line 204), `bridge/claude-md-coordinator.cjs` (line 667), `bridge/team-bridge.cjs`, `scripts/generate-prompt-projections.mjs` (line 34), … (+48 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

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

What to do

1. Resolve the 13 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 issue-level).
2. Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
3. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 39 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (39 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

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

No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm), and the findings above are real and complete for them. osv was not scanned (osv: osv-scanner exited 1 with no findings — dependency CVEs were not measured), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

trivy and checkov found no infrastructure-as-code or container misconfigurations.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md.

What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.

Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR LEAK scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset: personal data crossing a boundary it should not — reaching a log/console sink, a URL or query string, or unprotected browser storage. Matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. A clean sweep is unscored rather than an unearned 10, and is a statement about the leak paths checked only — this dimension does not inventory the personal data a repository holds (the personal-data map and the C1-C5 compliance cards do that), so it never reports that a repository has no personal-data surface. Reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive over the leak paths, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. semgrep could not parse 27 file(s) — `benchmarks/shared/scorer.ts`, `bridge/claude-md-coordinator.cjs`, `scripts/generate-prompt-projections.mjs`, `scripts/keyword-detector.mjs`, `REDACTED`, … (+22 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.

What to do

1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d32_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

7 of 494 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is benchmark/analyze_failures.py. Counted over 494 of the 656 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

What to do

1. Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with analyze_failures.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
2. Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

What to do

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

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

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

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

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

No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm), and the findings above are real and complete for them. osv was not scanned (osv: osv-scanner exited 1 with no findings — dependency CVEs were not measured), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 0 platform declaration(s) and 12 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

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 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.

Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.

Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.

• `CategoryConfig` (slice 'delegation-categories') depends on `ComplexityTier` from slice 'model-routing'. — src/features/delegation-categories/types.ts:30
• `CategoryContext` (slice 'delegation-categories') depends on `ComplexityTier` from slice 'model-routing'. — src/features/delegation-categories/types.ts:54

What to do

• Keep slices independent: share cross-slice needs via an explicit contract/shared-kernel, not direct references between slices.

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

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

What to do

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

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.

What to do

• Grow the ADR log (currently 5) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

• Only 2/3 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `.`.

What to do

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

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

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

• No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 63392 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

• Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — 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 automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

What to do

• Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
• Enable purge protection / soft-delete (and prevent_destroy on critical resources) so data stores can't be lost to an accidental or malicious delete.

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.

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

• `main` is async and calls existsSync, mkdirSync, writeFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — benchmarks/harsh-critic/run-benchmark.ts:317
• `main` is async and calls existsSync, execSync, readFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — benchmarks/run-all.ts:227
• `main` is async and calls existsSync, spawnSync, mkdirSync, mkdtempSync, writeFileSync, readFileSync, rmSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/audit-multirepo-e2e.mjs:137
• `resolveOmcStateRoot` is async and calls existsSync, execFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. (×2) — scripts/lib/state-root.mjs:92, scripts/lib/state-root.cjs:84
• `resolveSessionStatePathsForHook` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. (×2) — scripts/lib/state-root.mjs:133, scripts/lib/state-root.cjs:126
• `main` is async and calls existsSync, unlinkSync, mkdirSync, writeFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/code-simplifier.mjs:82
• `resolveHudCacheContextPercent` is async and calls statSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/lib/context-usage.mjs:102
• `generateInventoryGraph` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/generate-inventory-graph.mjs:336
• `main` is async and calls readFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. (×2) — scripts/generate-inventory-graph.mjs:595, scripts/verify-generated-artifact-authorization.mjs:740
• `main` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. (×2) — scripts/generate-prompt-projections.mjs:22, scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:1113
• `main` is async and calls existsSync, readFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. (×2) — scripts/jev-eval.mjs:218, scripts/verify-deliverables.mjs:148
• `activateState` is async and calls mkdirSync, existsSync, readFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/keyword-detector.mjs:990
• `main` is async and calls existsSync, unlinkSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:903
• `initOmcDir` is async and calls existsSync, mkdirSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/post-tool-use-failure.mjs:299
• `main` is async and calls mkdirSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/post-tool-use-failure.mjs:396
• `getTodoStatus` is async and calls existsSync, readFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:891
• `main` is async and calls writeFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:329
• `main` is async and calls spawnSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:313
• `checkNpmUpdate` is async and calls existsSync, readFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/session-start.mjs:834
• `checkHudInstallation` is async and calls existsSync, readFileSync, readdirSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/session-start.mjs:956
• `main` is async and calls existsSync, readFileSync, readdirSync, lstatSync, readlinkSync, symlinkSync, renameSync, unlinkSync, rmSync, mkdirSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/session-start.mjs:1040
• `countUserTurns` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/session-summary.mjs:42
• `extractConversationContext` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/session-summary.mjs:70
• `checkProjectSkillTriggers` is async and calls existsSync, readdirSync, readFileSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/shipyard-audit.mjs:178
• `main` is async and calls existsSync, statSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — scripts/shipyard-audit.mjs:290
• `loadAutoresearchMissionContract` is async and calls existsSync, realpathSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — src/autoresearch/contracts.ts:204
• `writeGitInfoExclude` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:226
• `appendDecisionLog` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:244
• `ensureAutoresearchWorktreeDependencies` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:285
• `readActiveRunState` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:388
• `initializeAutoresearchResultsFile` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:494
• `appendAutoresearchResultsRow` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:500
• `appendAutoresearchLedgerEntry` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:521
• `readAutoresearchLedgerEntries` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:542
• `runAutoresearchEvaluator` is async and calls spawnSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — REDACTED:591

What to do

• TypeScript/JavaScript: use the promise APIs (fs/promises, a promisified child_process.execFile, the async zlib/crypto functions) and await them instead of the *Sync variants.

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

What to do

• Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

• 128 duplicated blocks under the repository root have copies in at least two of the sibling directories scripts, skills, src, templates — 110 of them are reported below, and 18 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 128 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 128 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 128 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — scripts/workflow-drift-guard.mjs:12
• 96 duplicated blocks under src/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories agents, autoresearch, cli, config, features, graph (+15 more sibling(s) not listed) — 57 of them are reported below, and 39 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 96 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 96 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 96 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — src/interop/omx-team-state.ts:333
• 19 duplicated blocks under src/hooks/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories auto-slash-command, autopilot, comment-checker, directory-readme-injector, empty-message-sanitizer, keyword-detector (+13 more sibling(s) not listed) — 11 of them are reported below, and 8 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 19 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 19 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 19 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — src/hooks/directory-readme-injector/index.ts:70
• 7 duplicated blocks under src/features/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories background-agent, rate-limit-wait, session-friction-report, session-history-search — 6 of them are reported below, and 1 is counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 7 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 7 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 7 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — src/features/session-friction-report/index.ts:62
• scripts/workflow-drift-guard.mjs:12 · templates/hooks/workflow-drift-guard.mjs:12 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 621 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — scripts/workflow-drift-guard.mjs:12
• scripts/keyword-detector.mjs:90 · templates/hooks/keyword-detector.mjs:43 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 3419 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — scripts/keyword-detector.mjs:90
• scripts/lib/precompact-restore.mjs:17 · templates/hooks/lib/precompact-restore.mjs:17 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 438 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — scripts/lib/precompact-restore.mjs:17
• scripts/lib/state-lock.mjs:101 · REDACTED:128 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 2180 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — scripts/lib/state-lock.mjs:101
• scripts/lib/precompact-publisher.mjs:16 · templates/hooks/lib/precompact-publisher.mjs:16 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 249 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — scripts/lib/precompact-publisher.mjs:16
• REDACTED:6 · REDACTED:6 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 242 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — REDACTED:6
• scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:789 · templates/hooks/persistent-mode.mjs:456 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 2603 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:789
• scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:1330 · templates/hooks/persistent-mode.mjs:1022 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 1710 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:1330
• scripts/post-tool-use-failure.mjs:25 · templates/hooks/post-tool-use-failure.mjs:31 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 1167 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — scripts/post-tool-use-failure.mjs:25
• scripts/lib/workflow-profile-runtime.mjs:1 · templates/hooks/lib/workflow-profile-runtime.mjs:1 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 154 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — scripts/lib/workflow-profile-runtime.mjs:1
• src/tools/memory-tools.ts:35 · src/tools/notepad-tools.ts:41 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 777 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/tools/memory-tools.ts:35
• REDACTED:166 · templates/hooks/pre-tool-use.mjs:158 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 1095 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — REDACTED:166
• scripts/keyword-detector.mjs:1258 · templates/hooks/keyword-detector.mjs:1206 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — scripts/keyword-detector.mjs:1258
• scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:1155 · templates/hooks/persistent-mode.mjs:938 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 753 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:1155
• scripts/post-tool-verifier.mjs:525 · templates/hooks/post-tool-use.mjs:42 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 638 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — scripts/post-tool-verifier.mjs:525
• src/hooks/omc-orchestrator/index.ts:131 · templates/hooks/pre-tool-use.mjs:390 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 1159 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/hooks/omc-orchestrator/index.ts:131
• scripts/code-simplifier.mjs:19 · templates/hooks/code-simplifier.mjs:19 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 91 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — scripts/code-simplifier.mjs:19
• scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:610 · templates/hooks/persistent-mode.mjs:619 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:610
• scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:404 · templates/hooks/persistent-mode.mjs:284 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:404
• scripts/lib/stdin.mjs:21 · templates/hooks/lib/stdin.mjs:19 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 77 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — scripts/lib/stdin.mjs:21
• REDACTED:354 · scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:440 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — REDACTED:354
• scripts/lib/state-root.cjs:20 · scripts/lib/state-root.mjs:21 · templates/hooks/lib/state-root.mjs:21 — these 3 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 74 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — scripts/lib/state-root.cjs:20
• REDACTED:816 · scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:1026 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — REDACTED:816
• src/hooks/directory-readme-injector/index.ts:70 · src/hooks/rules-injector/index.ts:54 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 401 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/hooks/directory-readme-injector/index.ts:70
• scripts/post-tool-directory-context-injector.mjs:25 · scripts/post-tool-rules-injector.mjs:22 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — scripts/post-tool-directory-context-injector.mjs:25
• src/hud/elements/limits.ts:64 · src/hud/elements/limits.ts:232 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 707 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/hud/elements/limits.ts:64
• src/hooks/learner/bridge.ts:335 · src/hooks/learner/finder.ts:16 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 416 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/hooks/learner/bridge.ts:335
• REDACTED:102 · src/hooks/persistent-mode/idle-repo-state.ts:35 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 436 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — REDACTED:102
• scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:29 · templates/hooks/persistent-mode.mjs:26 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:29
• scripts/session-start.mjs:1425 · REDACTED:776 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — scripts/session-start.mjs:1425
• scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:182 · templates/hooks/persistent-mode.mjs:135 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:182
• src/team/dispatch-queue.ts:300 · src/team/team-ops.ts:867 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 502 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/team/dispatch-queue.ts:300
• scripts/skill-injector.mjs:501 · src/hooks/learner/index.ts:56 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 341 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — scripts/skill-injector.mjs:501
• src/notifications/reply-listener.ts:611 · src/notifications/reply-listener.ts:795 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 266 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/notifications/reply-listener.ts:611
• src/team/team-ops.ts:779 · src/team/tmux-comm.ts:26 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 536 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/team/team-ops.ts:779
• src/tools/shared-memory-tools.ts:81 · src/tools/shared-memory-tools.ts:200 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 325 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/tools/shared-memory-tools.ts:81

What to do

• Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.

React / JS · Architecture — Conformance to the detected frontend architecture layout (feature-sliced / layered src) plus cross-package deep-import rules (D-386).

Method: Conformance to the detected frontend layout (feature-sliced / layered src) plus cross-package deep-import rules, over the module graph. Deterministic.

• src/features/__tests__/checkpoint.test.ts:12 imports src/features/checkpoint/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/__tests__/checkpoint.test.ts:12
• src/features/__tests__/jev-model-routing.test.ts:15 imports src/features/jev-model-routing.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/__tests__/jev-model-routing.test.ts:15
• src/features/__tests__/jev-model-routing.test.ts:16 imports src/features/delegation-enforcer.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/__tests__/jev-model-routing.test.ts:16
• src/features/__tests__/jev-slop-warning.test.ts:5 imports src/features/jev-slop-warning.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/__tests__/jev-slop-warning.test.ts:5
• src/features/__tests__/magic-keywords.test.ts:3 imports src/features/magic-keywords.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/__tests__/magic-keywords.test.ts:3
• src/features/delegation-enforcer.ts:19 imports src/features/delegation-routing/types.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/delegation-enforcer.ts:19
• src/features/delegation-enforcer.ts:22 imports src/features/builtin-skills/skills.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/delegation-enforcer.ts:22
• src/features/index.ts:55 imports src/features/boulder-state/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:55
• src/features/index.ts:84 imports src/features/context-injector/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:84
• src/features/index.ts:105 imports src/features/background-agent/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:105
• src/features/index.ts:122 imports src/features/builtin-skills/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:122
• src/features/index.ts:134 imports src/features/session-friction-report/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:134
• src/features/index.ts:143 imports src/features/model-routing/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:143
• src/features/index.ts:198 imports src/features/notepad-wisdom/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:198
• src/features/index.ts:214 imports src/features/delegation-categories/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:214
• src/features/index.ts:239 imports src/features/state-manager/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:239
• src/features/index.ts:272 imports src/features/verification/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:272
• src/features/index.ts:295 imports src/features/task-decomposer/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:295
• src/features/index.ts:318 imports src/features/session-history-search/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:318
• src/features/index.ts:326 imports src/features/agent-addressability/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:326
• src/features/index.ts:343 imports src/features/lookout/index.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/index.ts:343
• src/features/notepad-wisdom/index.ts:11 imports src/features/boulder-state/constants.ts against the feature-sliced rules. — src/features/notepad-wisdom/index.ts:11

What to do

• Fix the listed violations: respect the layer/slice order — import only through a slice's public index and never upward into a higher layer (22 rows).

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

• executeTeamApiOperation has cyclomatic complexity 258 and cognitive complexity 285; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/team/api-interop.ts:659
• main has cyclomatic complexity 160 and cognitive complexity 274; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — scripts/persistent-mode.mjs:1113
• main has cyclomatic complexity 136 and cognitive complexity 245; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — templates/hooks/persistent-mode.mjs:909
• handler has cyclomatic complexity 133 and cognitive complexity 210; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/tools/state-tools.ts:1544
• render has cyclomatic complexity 133 and cognitive complexity 201; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/hud/render.ts:233
• main has cyclomatic complexity 127 and cognitive complexity 222; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — REDACTED:903
• processCliWorkerVerdictsUnderLock has cyclomatic complexity 124 and cognitive complexity 244; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/team/runtime-v2.ts:4735
• createTeamSession has cyclomatic complexity 113 and cognitive complexity 254; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/team/tmux-session.ts:1898
• main has cyclomatic complexity 105 and cognitive complexity 225; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — scripts/session-start.mjs:1040
• (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 102 and cognitive complexity 175; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/team/scaling.ts:295
• (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 100 and cognitive complexity 102; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — REDACTED:299
• install has cyclomatic complexity 99 and cognitive complexity 156; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/installer/index.ts:2443
• runPersistentRecoveryOwnerLoop has cyclomatic complexity 96 and cognitive complexity 103; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/team/runtime-cli.ts:477
• (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 94 and cognitive complexity 156; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/team/runtime-v2.ts:3982
• verifyLiveGitHubEvidence has cyclomatic complexity 92 and cognitive complexity 134; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — scripts/verify-epic-3698-closure.mjs:352
• main has cyclomatic complexity 91 and cognitive complexity 130; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — REDACTED:1666
• checkExactHeadCi has cyclomatic complexity 89 and cognitive complexity 149; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — scripts/verify-epic-3698-closure.mjs:605
• main has cyclomatic complexity 85 and cognitive complexity 108; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — scripts/keyword-detector.mjs:1654
• shutdownTeamV2 has cyclomatic complexity 79 and cognitive complexity 153; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/team/runtime-v2.ts:5667
• mainImpl has cyclomatic complexity 79 and cognitive complexity 95; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/hud/index.ts:256

What to do

• Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

• 127 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: src/team/runtime-v2.ts (6023), src/team/tmux-session.ts (3767), src/hooks/bridge.ts (3134), src/installer/index.ts (2539), src/tools/state-tools.ts (2442), src/team/worker-launch-ack.ts (2425) (+121 more).

What to do

• Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

• No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×40) — scripts/verify-epic-3698-closure.mjs, templates/hooks/keyword-detector.mjs, scripts/lib/precompact-restore.mjs, …

What to do

• Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).

React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).

Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.

What to do

• Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

• Unreachable from the 278 application, 93 tooling and 851 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run build` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
• no import path from any entry point (278 application, 93 tooling, 851 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make (×15) — scripts/lib/precompact-restore.mjs, src/agents/prompt-sections/index.ts, scripts/test-remember-tags.ts, …
• no import path from any entry point (278 application, 93 tooling, 851 test roots considered), but 2 in-repo import(s) from 1 other file(s) do name it (src/mcp/index.ts) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — src/mcp/mcp-config.ts
• Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×15) — benchmarks/shared/types.ts:167, benchmarks/shared/types.ts:177, benchmarks/shared/types.ts:178, …
• Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in src/agents/prompt-ssot/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in src/agents/prompt-ssot/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists. (×2) — src/agents/prompt-ssot/manifest.ts:53, src/agents/prompt-ssot/sections.ts:253
• Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in src/features/delegation-routing/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in src/features/delegation-routing/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists. — src/features/delegation-routing/types.ts:22
• Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in src/hooks/factcheck/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in src/hooks/factcheck/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists. — src/hooks/factcheck/config.ts:136
• Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in src/hooks/merge-readiness/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in src/hooks/merge-readiness/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists. (×3) — src/hooks/merge-readiness/runtime.ts:828, src/hooks/merge-readiness/runtime.ts:849, src/hooks/merge-readiness/runtime.ts:859
• Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in src/hooks/registry/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in src/hooks/registry/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists. — src/hooks/registry/cutover.ts:34

What to do

• Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

• src/features/builtin-skills/runtime-guidance.ts → REDACTED → src/features/delegation-enforcer.ts → src/features/builtin-skills/skills.ts → src/features/builtin-skills/runtime-guidance.ts — src/features/builtin-skills/runtime-guidance.ts
• src/hooks/autopilot/enforcement.ts → src/hooks/persistent-mode/index.ts → src/hooks/autopilot/enforcement.ts (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 3 files) — src/hooks/autopilot/enforcement.ts
• src/hooks/autopilot/named-workflow-resume-validator.ts → src/hooks/autopilot/pipeline.ts → src/hooks/autopilot/named-workflow-resume-validator.ts (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 3 files) — src/hooks/autopilot/named-workflow-resume-validator.ts
• src/hooks/code-simplifier/index.ts → src/hooks/code-simplifier/jev-shadow.ts → src/hooks/code-simplifier/index.ts — src/hooks/code-simplifier/index.ts
• src/hooks/learner/detection-hook.ts → src/hooks/learner/index.ts → src/hooks/learner/detection-hook.ts — src/hooks/learner/detection-hook.ts
• src/hud/background-cleanup.ts → src/hud/state.ts → src/hud/background-cleanup.ts — src/hud/background-cleanup.ts
• src/tools/diagnostics/index.ts → src/tools/diagnostics/lsp-aggregator.ts → src/tools/diagnostics/index.ts — src/tools/diagnostics/index.ts

What to do

• Break each cycle by extracting the shared piece into a module both sides can import.