Executive summary
Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.
This system holds a strong overall standing with a health score of 68%, indicating a reliable asset that requires targeted attention to sustain its value. While the architecture is robust and the codebase is small, significant gaps in documentation and testing maturity create hidden risks that could slow future delivery and increase operational costs.
The system is small, comprising roughly 17,000 lines of production code, with a rebuild cost estimated at just €22,000. This low barrier to entry means the business has high flexibility, but it also means the current state is fragile in areas that matter most for long-term maintenance. The value tied up here is not in complexity, but in the clarity of how decisions were made and how the system is operated.
The primary risk lies in Maturity, which scored only 57%. This lens measures whether a new team can pick up the work and whether operations are safe. Without adequate documentation and testing practices, every change carries a higher risk of defects and outages. This weakness concentrates the operational risk, as the team lacks the institutional knowledge to navigate changes efficiently, leading to potential delays and increased support burdens.
A secondary concern is the Velocity Tax on every change. Code quality signals suggest that modifications in weaker areas cost 3–7% more effort than in clean code. This is not a one-time cost but a recurring drag on the ~27,600 lines the team changes annually. Over time, this inefficiency compounds, consuming engineering capacity that could otherwise be spent on new features or improvements.
On the positive side, the architecture is excellent at 96%, and event sourcing is fully mature. This means the core structure is sound and scalable, providing a solid foundation for future growth. The system is not fragile in its design, only in its operational practices.
Focus first on recording significant decisions in a single, accessible location. This low-effort action pays for itself within months by reducing the velocity tax and improving team alignment. It is the highest-leverage move available, addressing the maturity gap without requiring significant investment.
Code Health
78%
Adequate · gated by D2
Architecture
96% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
57%
Adequate · gated by M2
Readiness
73%
Strong
Security
75%
Adequate · gated by D36
Event Sourcing
100% ★
Exemplary
Performance
100% ★
Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Maturity 57% · 46% weightReadiness 73% · 25% weightSecurity 75% · 14% weightCode Health 78% · 8% weightArchitecture 96% · 4% weightEvent Sourcing 100% · 2% weightPerformance 100% · 1% weight
Raise Maturity 57 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 68 → ~74.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (6+)
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €7,200–€36,000
| Cost to rebuild | €7,200–€36,000 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 1.0× (at 68% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€22,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 57% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
2
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
3
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
The top fix pays for itself
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 2.1–12.8 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~27,602 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–17 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 3–7% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 57%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
A velocity tax on every change
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.8/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 3–7% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Architecture — module dependency matrix
| depends on → | 1 action | 2 completion.render | 3 external_editor | 4 focus | 5 keyring | 6 tui | 7 ui | 8 utils | 9 vim | 10 config | 11 cli | 12 components | 13 rainfrog | 14 components.favorites | 15 database | 16 database.oracle.connect_options | 17 completion | 18 app | 19 database.duckdb | 20 database.mysql | 21 database.oracle | 22 database.postgresql | 23 database.sqlite | 24 components.editor | 25 components.history | 26 components.menu | 27 components.scroll_table | 28 popups | 29 components.data | 30 popups.confirm_bypass | 31 popups.confirm_export | 32 popups.confirm_query | 33 popups.confirm_tx | 34 popups.confirm_yank | 35 popups.exporting | 36 popups.name_favorite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 action | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 completion.render | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 external_editor | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 focus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 keyring | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 tui | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 ui | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 utils | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 vim | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 config | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 cli | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 components | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 rainfrog | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 components.favorites | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 database | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 database.oracle.connect_options | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 completion | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 app | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 database.duckdb | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 database.mysql | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 database.oracle | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 database.postgresql | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 database.sqlite | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 components.editor | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 components.history | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 components.menu | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 components.scroll_table | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 popups | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 components.data | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 popups.confirm_bypass | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 popups.confirm_export | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 popups.confirm_query | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 popups.confirm_tx | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 popups.confirm_yank | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 popups.exporting | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 popups.name_favorite | 1 | 1 |
Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself
10→1 config depends on action✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in config → type in action) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.config.KeyBindings→rainfrog.action.Action
- Direction
- config uses action. Changing action can break config, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
10→4 config depends on focus✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in config → type in focus) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.config.KeyBindings→rainfrog.focus.Focus
- Direction
- config uses focus. Changing focus can break config, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
10→5 config depends on keyring✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in config → type in keyring) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.config.StructuredConnection→rainfrog.keyring.Password
- Direction
- config uses keyring. Changing keyring can break config, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
10→11 config depends on cli cycle✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in config → type in cli) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.config.DatabaseConnection→rainfrog.cli.Driverrainfrog.config.StructuredConnection→rainfrog.cli.Driver
- Direction
- config uses cli. Changing cli can break config, not the reverse.
- Position
- Above the diagonal — a cycle. Neither module can be changed, tested or deployed independently until one of these dependencies goes.
11→10 cli depends on config✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in cli → type in config) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.cli.cli$module→rainfrog.config.Config
- Direction
- cli uses config. Changing config can break cli, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→1 components depends on action✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components → type in action) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.Component→rainfrog.action.Action
- Direction
- components uses action. Changing action can break components, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→6 components depends on tui✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components → type in tui) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.Component→rainfrog.tui.Event
- Direction
- components uses tui. Changing tui can break components, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→10 components depends on config✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components → type in config) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.Component→rainfrog.config.Config
- Direction
- components uses config. Changing config can break components, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→18 components depends on app cycle✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.Component→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- components uses app. Changing app can break components, not the reverse.
- Position
- Above the diagonal — a cycle. Neither module can be changed, tested or deployed independently until one of these dependencies goes.
13→10 rainfrog depends on config✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in rainfrog → type in config) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.rainfrog$module→rainfrog.config.Config
- Direction
- rainfrog uses config. Changing config can break rainfrog, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
13→11 rainfrog depends on cli✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in rainfrog → type in cli) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.rainfrog$module→rainfrog.cli.Clirainfrog.rainfrog$module→rainfrog.cli.Driver
- Direction
- rainfrog uses cli. Changing cli can break rainfrog, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
14→1 components.favorites depends on action✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.favorites → type in action) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.favorites.Favorites→rainfrog.action.Action
- Direction
- components.favorites uses action. Changing action can break components.favorites, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
14→10 components.favorites depends on config✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.favorites → type in config) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.favorites.Favorites→rainfrog.config.Config
- Direction
- components.favorites uses config. Changing config can break components.favorites, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
14→12 components.favorites depends on components✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.favorites → type in components) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.favorites.Favorites→rainfrog.components.Component
- Direction
- components.favorites uses components. Changing components can break components.favorites, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
14→18 components.favorites depends on app cycle✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.favorites → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.favorites.Favorites→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- components.favorites uses app. Changing app can break components.favorites, not the reverse.
- Position
- Above the diagonal — a cycle. Neither module can be changed, tested or deployed independently until one of these dependencies goes.
15→11 database depends on cli✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in database → type in cli) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.Database→rainfrog.cli.Clirainfrog.database.database$module→rainfrog.cli.Driver
- Direction
- database uses cli. Changing cli can break database, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
15→17 database depends on completion cycle✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in database → type in completion) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.Database→rainfrog.completion.TableRef
- Direction
- database uses completion. Changing completion can break database, not the reverse.
- Position
- Above the diagonal — a cycle. Neither module can be changed, tested or deployed independently until one of these dependencies goes.
16→11 database.oracle.connect_options depends on cli✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in database.oracle.connect_options → type in cli) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.oracle.connect_options.OracleConnectOptions→rainfrog.cli.Cli
- Direction
- database.oracle.connect_options uses cli. Changing cli can break database.oracle.connect_options, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
17→11 completion depends on cli✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in completion → type in cli) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.completion.CompletionRequest→rainfrog.cli.Driverrainfrog.completion.completion$module→rainfrog.cli.Driver
- Direction
- completion uses cli. Changing cli can break completion, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
17→15 completion depends on database✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in completion → type in database) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.completion.CompletionCoordinator→rainfrog.database.Rowsrainfrog.completion.completion$module→rainfrog.database.Rows
- Direction
- completion uses database. Changing database can break completion, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→1 app depends on action✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in app → type in action) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.app.app$module→rainfrog.action.Action
- Direction
- app uses action. Changing action can break app, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→4 app depends on focus✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in app → type in focus) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.app.App→rainfrog.focus.Focusrainfrog.app.AppState→rainfrog.focus.Focusrainfrog.app.app$module→rainfrog.focus.Focus
- Direction
- app uses focus. Changing focus can break app, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→10 app depends on config✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in app → type in config) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.app.App→rainfrog.config.Configrainfrog.app.app$module→rainfrog.config.Configrainfrog.app.app$module→rainfrog.config.KeyBindings
- Direction
- app uses config. Changing config can break app, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→11 app depends on cli✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in app → type in cli) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.app.App→rainfrog.cli.Clirainfrog.app.App→rainfrog.cli.Driverrainfrog.app.AppState→rainfrog.cli.Driver
- Direction
- app uses cli. Changing cli can break app, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→14 app depends on components.favorites✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in app → type in components.favorites) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.app.AppState→rainfrog.components.favorites.FavoriteEntries
- Direction
- app uses components.favorites. Changing components.favorites can break app, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→17 app depends on completion✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in app → type in completion) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.app.App→rainfrog.completion.CompletionCoordinator
- Direction
- app uses completion. Changing completion can break app, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
19→11 database.duckdb depends on cli✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in database.duckdb → type in cli) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.duckdb.DuckDbDriver→rainfrog.cli.Cli
- Direction
- database.duckdb uses cli. Changing cli can break database.duckdb, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
19→15 database.duckdb depends on database✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in database.duckdb → type in database) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.duckdb.DuckDbDriver→rainfrog.database.Databaserainfrog.database.duckdb.duckdb$module→rainfrog.database.Rows
- Direction
- database.duckdb uses database. Changing database can break database.duckdb, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
19→17 database.duckdb depends on completion✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in database.duckdb → type in completion) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.duckdb.DuckDbDriver→rainfrog.completion.TableRef
- Direction
- database.duckdb uses completion. Changing completion can break database.duckdb, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
20→11 database.mysql depends on cli✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in database.mysql → type in cli) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.mysql.MySqlDriver→rainfrog.cli.Cli
- Direction
- database.mysql uses cli. Changing cli can break database.mysql, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
20→15 database.mysql depends on database✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in database.mysql → type in database) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.mysql.MySqlDriver→rainfrog.database.Databaserainfrog.database.mysql.mysql$module→rainfrog.database.Value
- Direction
- database.mysql uses database. Changing database can break database.mysql, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
20→17 database.mysql depends on completion✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in database.mysql → type in completion) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.mysql.MySqlDriver→rainfrog.completion.TableRefrainfrog.database.mysql.mysql$module→rainfrog.completion.Column
- Direction
- database.mysql uses completion. Changing completion can break database.mysql, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
21→11 database.oracle depends on cli✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in database.oracle → type in cli) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.oracle.OracleDriver→rainfrog.cli.Cli
- Direction
- database.oracle uses cli. Changing cli can break database.oracle, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
21→15 database.oracle depends on database✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in database.oracle → type in database) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.oracle.OracleDriver→rainfrog.database.Databaserainfrog.database.oracle.oracle$module→rainfrog.database.Header
- Direction
- database.oracle uses database. Changing database can break database.oracle, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
21→17 database.oracle depends on completion✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in database.oracle → type in completion) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.oracle.OracleDriver→rainfrog.completion.TableRef
- Direction
- database.oracle uses completion. Changing completion can break database.oracle, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
22→11 database.postgresql depends on cli✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in database.postgresql → type in cli) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.postgresql.PostgresDriver→rainfrog.cli.Cli
- Direction
- database.postgresql uses cli. Changing cli can break database.postgresql, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
22→15 database.postgresql depends on database✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in database.postgresql → type in database) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.postgresql.PostgresDriver→rainfrog.database.Databaserainfrog.database.postgresql.postgresql$module→rainfrog.database.Value
- Direction
- database.postgresql uses database. Changing database can break database.postgresql, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
22→17 database.postgresql depends on completion✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in database.postgresql → type in completion) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.postgresql.PostgresDriver→rainfrog.completion.TableRefrainfrog.database.postgresql.postgresql$module→rainfrog.completion.Column
- Direction
- database.postgresql uses completion. Changing completion can break database.postgresql, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
23→11 database.sqlite depends on cli✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in database.sqlite → type in cli) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.sqlite.SqliteDriver→rainfrog.cli.Cli
- Direction
- database.sqlite uses cli. Changing cli can break database.sqlite, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
23→15 database.sqlite depends on database✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in database.sqlite → type in database) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.sqlite.SqliteDriver→rainfrog.database.Databaserainfrog.database.sqlite.sqlite$module→rainfrog.database.Value
- Direction
- database.sqlite uses database. Changing database can break database.sqlite, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
23→17 database.sqlite depends on completion✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in database.sqlite → type in completion) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.database.sqlite.SqliteDriver→rainfrog.completion.TableRefrainfrog.database.sqlite.sqlite$module→rainfrog.completion.Column
- Direction
- database.sqlite uses completion. Changing completion can break database.sqlite, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→1 components.editor depends on action✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.editor → type in action) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.editor.Editor→rainfrog.action.Action
- Direction
- components.editor uses action. Changing action can break components.editor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→2 components.editor depends on completion.render✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.editor → type in completion.render) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.editor.Editor→rainfrog.completion.render.ViewportState
- Direction
- components.editor uses completion.render. Changing completion.render can break components.editor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→6 components.editor depends on tui✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.editor → type in tui) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.editor.Editor→rainfrog.tui.Event
- Direction
- components.editor uses tui. Changing tui can break components.editor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→9 components.editor depends on vim✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.editor → type in vim) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.editor.Editor→rainfrog.vim.Vim
- Direction
- components.editor uses vim. Changing vim can break components.editor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→10 components.editor depends on config✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.editor → type in config) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.editor.Editor→rainfrog.config.Config
- Direction
- components.editor uses config. Changing config can break components.editor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→12 components.editor depends on components✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.editor → type in components) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.editor.Editor→rainfrog.components.Component
- Direction
- components.editor uses components. Changing components can break components.editor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→17 components.editor depends on completion✕
- Type pairs
- 4 distinct (type in components.editor → type in completion) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.editor.CompletionMenuState→rainfrog.completion.CompletionCandidaterainfrog.components.editor.CompletionMenuState→rainfrog.completion.CompletionResponserainfrog.components.editor.Editor→rainfrog.completion.CompletionClientrainfrog.components.editor.Editor→rainfrog.completion.CompletionResponse
- Direction
- components.editor uses completion. Changing completion can break components.editor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→18 components.editor depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.editor → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.editor.Editor→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- components.editor uses app. Changing app can break components.editor, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
25→1 components.history depends on action✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.history → type in action) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.history.History→rainfrog.action.Action
- Direction
- components.history uses action. Changing action can break components.history, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
25→10 components.history depends on config✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.history → type in config) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.history.History→rainfrog.config.Config
- Direction
- components.history uses config. Changing config can break components.history, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
25→12 components.history depends on components✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.history → type in components) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.history.History→rainfrog.components.Component
- Direction
- components.history uses components. Changing components can break components.history, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
25→18 components.history depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.history → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.history.History→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- components.history uses app. Changing app can break components.history, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
26→1 components.menu depends on action✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.menu → type in action) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.menu.MenuItem→rainfrog.action.MenuItemKind
- Direction
- components.menu uses action. Changing action can break components.menu, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
26→10 components.menu depends on config✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.menu → type in config) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.menu.Menu→rainfrog.config.Config
- Direction
- components.menu uses config. Changing config can break components.menu, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
26→12 components.menu depends on components✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in components.menu → type in components) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.menu.Menu→rainfrog.components.Componentrainfrog.components.menu.MenuComponent→rainfrog.components.Component
- Direction
- components.menu uses components. Changing components can break components.menu, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
26→18 components.menu depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.menu → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.menu.Menu→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- components.menu uses app. Changing app can break components.menu, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
27→12 components.scroll_table depends on components✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.scroll_table → type in components) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.scroll_table.ScrollTable→rainfrog.components.Component
- Direction
- components.scroll_table uses components. Changing components can break components.scroll_table, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
27→18 components.scroll_table depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.scroll_table → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.scroll_table.ScrollTable→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- components.scroll_table uses app. Changing app can break components.scroll_table, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
28→18 popups depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.PopUp→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- popups uses app. Changing app can break popups, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→1 components.data depends on action✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.data → type in action) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.data.Data→rainfrog.action.Action
- Direction
- components.data uses action. Changing action can break components.data, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→10 components.data depends on config✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in components.data → type in config) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.data.Data→rainfrog.config.Config
- Direction
- components.data uses config. Changing config can break components.data, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→12 components.data depends on components✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in components.data → type in components) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.data.Data→rainfrog.components.Componentrainfrog.components.data.DataComponent→rainfrog.components.Component
- Direction
- components.data uses components. Changing components can break components.data, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→15 components.data depends on database✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in components.data → type in database) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.data.Data→rainfrog.database.Rowsrainfrog.components.data.TableForYank→rainfrog.database.Rows
- Direction
- components.data uses database. Changing database can break components.data, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→18 components.data depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in components.data → type in app) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.data.Data→rainfrog.app.AppStaterainfrog.components.data.TableForYank→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- components.data uses app. Changing app can break components.data, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→27 components.data depends on components.scroll_table✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in components.data → type in components.scroll_table) references.
- Which types
rainfrog.components.data.Data→rainfrog.components.scroll_table.ScrollDirectionrainfrog.components.data.Data→rainfrog.components.scroll_table.ScrollTable
- Direction
- components.data uses components.scroll_table. Changing components.scroll_table can break components.data, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
30→18 popups.confirm_bypass depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.confirm_bypass → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.confirm_bypass.ConfirmBypass→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- popups.confirm_bypass uses app. Changing app can break popups.confirm_bypass, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
30→28 popups.confirm_bypass depends on popups✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.confirm_bypass → type in popups) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.confirm_bypass.ConfirmBypass→rainfrog.popups.PopUp
- Direction
- popups.confirm_bypass uses popups. Changing popups can break popups.confirm_bypass, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
31→18 popups.confirm_export depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.confirm_export → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.confirm_export.ConfirmExport→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- popups.confirm_export uses app. Changing app can break popups.confirm_export, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
31→28 popups.confirm_export depends on popups✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.confirm_export → type in popups) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.confirm_export.ConfirmExport→rainfrog.popups.PopUp
- Direction
- popups.confirm_export uses popups. Changing popups can break popups.confirm_export, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
32→18 popups.confirm_query depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.confirm_query → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.confirm_query.ConfirmQuery→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- popups.confirm_query uses app. Changing app can break popups.confirm_query, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
32→28 popups.confirm_query depends on popups✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.confirm_query → type in popups) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.confirm_query.ConfirmQuery→rainfrog.popups.PopUp
- Direction
- popups.confirm_query uses popups. Changing popups can break popups.confirm_query, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→18 popups.confirm_tx depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.confirm_tx → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.confirm_tx.ConfirmTx→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- popups.confirm_tx uses app. Changing app can break popups.confirm_tx, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→28 popups.confirm_tx depends on popups✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.confirm_tx → type in popups) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.confirm_tx.ConfirmTx→rainfrog.popups.PopUp
- Direction
- popups.confirm_tx uses popups. Changing popups can break popups.confirm_tx, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
34→18 popups.confirm_yank depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.confirm_yank → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.confirm_yank.ConfirmYank→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- popups.confirm_yank uses app. Changing app can break popups.confirm_yank, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
34→28 popups.confirm_yank depends on popups✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.confirm_yank → type in popups) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.confirm_yank.ConfirmYank→rainfrog.popups.PopUp
- Direction
- popups.confirm_yank uses popups. Changing popups can break popups.confirm_yank, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
35→18 popups.exporting depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.exporting → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.exporting.Exporting→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- popups.exporting uses app. Changing app can break popups.exporting, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
35→28 popups.exporting depends on popups✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.exporting → type in popups) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.exporting.Exporting→rainfrog.popups.PopUp
- Direction
- popups.exporting uses popups. Changing popups can break popups.exporting, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
36→18 popups.name_favorite depends on app✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.name_favorite → type in app) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.name_favorite.NameFavorite→rainfrog.app.AppState
- Direction
- popups.name_favorite uses app. Changing app can break popups.name_favorite, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
36→28 popups.name_favorite depends on popups✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in popups.name_favorite → type in popups) reference.
- Which types
rainfrog.popups.name_favorite.NameFavorite→rainfrog.popups.PopUp
- Direction
- popups.name_favorite uses popups. Changing popups can break popups.name_favorite, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
At a glance — Code Health
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Good
At a glance — Event Sourcing
At a glance — Performance
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 34 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 10 | Medium |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 5 | Medium |
Roadmap
Begin by establishing a formal architecture decision record process to capture significant design choices and their consequences in a centralized location. Simultaneously, address the five high-churn complexity hotspots in app.rs, data.rs, and editor.rs to stabilize the core codebase. Finally, enhance the root README by adding a dedicated testing section to clarify how to run the test suite.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +9.0 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). | +9.6 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +9.0 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. | +6.1 pts | Medium | Documentation Quality |
| Resolve the 5 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with app.rs, data.rs, editor.rs. | +4.5 pts | High | Churn × Complexity Hotspots |
| Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) for operability. | +2.5 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate. | +2.5 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion. | +2.1 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 2.3 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.8 | Mixed | Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED |
| src/database/mysql.rs | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| REDACTED | 6.3 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED |
| src/database/duckdb.rs | 6.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| REDACTED | 6.9 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED |
| src/database/postgresql.rs | 7.0 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: PostgresDriver::build_connection_opts (cognitive 35) |
| src/components/data.rs | 7.0 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: Data::handle_key_events (cyclomatic 37) |
| src/components/favorites.rs | 7.0 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: Favorites::handle_key_events (cyclomatic 22) |
| src/completion/mod.rs | 7.0 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: rainfrog::completion::open_identifier_quote_position (cyclomatic 19) |
| src/app.rs | 7.0 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: App::run (cyclomatic 113) |
| src/components/menu.rs | 7.0 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: Menu::handle_key_events (cyclomatic 45) |
| src/vim.rs | 7.1 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: Vim::transition (cyclomatic 65) |
| src/database/oracle/connect_options.rs | 7.1 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: OracleConnectOptions::build_connection_opts (cyclomatic 20) |
| src/components/editor.rs | 7.2 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: Editor::transition_vim_state (cyclomatic 20) |
| src/database/sqlite.rs | 7.4 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: rainfrog::database::sqlite::parse_value (cyclomatic 16) |
| src/database/oracle/mod.rs | 7.4 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: OracleDriver::get_query_results (cognitive 23) |
| src/config.rs | 7.8 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: rainfrog::config::parse_color (cyclomatic 21) |
| src/utils.rs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
How the grades work
Critical — 33
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 138
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Minor — 30
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 41
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 36 of 39 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 39 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D6D9D12D13D15D17D19D20D21D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6PF3
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 169 of 201 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
- D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (repository root, 21 test files), but it was not re-run: the analyzer environment could not run it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (19 contributor(s) across 356 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 92% of the history; the other 18 hold 0.4% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (Cargo.toml), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
- AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- P8 Schema migrations — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The schema may be created by a runner, a deploy script or a config file outside what this check reads, so an absence here is our blind spot rather than a missing migration strategy. The card abstains instead of scoring. You can widen what we reach: if the schema is created and evolved by a tool this check does not name, naming it lets us teach the detector to read it.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
16 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was App::run at 113. A further 5 function(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being rainfrog::database::postgresql::parse_value at 34 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 2 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/database/postgresql.rs (rainfrog::database::postgresql::parse_value at 34), src/database/duckdb.rs (rainfrog::database::duckdb::duck_value_to_string at 25). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
rainfrog::config::parse_color (cyclomatic 21) src/config.rs:539
App::run (cyclomatic 113) src/app.rs:293
Menu::handle_key_events (cyclomatic 45) src/components/menu.rs:411
Data::handle_key_events (cyclomatic 37) src/components/data.rs:397
Vim::transition (cyclomatic 65)src/vim.rs:117
What to do
- Resolve the 4 rainfrog finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with mod.rs (2), config.rs, sqlite.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 App finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with app.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Menu finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with menu.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
28 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was App::run at 161.
rainfrog::completion::open_identifier_quote_position (cognitive 43) src/completion/mod.rs:1443
App::run (cognitive 161) src/app.rs:293
Menu::handle_key_events (cognitive 55) src/components/menu.rs:411
MySqlDriver::build_connection_opts (cognitive 39) src/database/mysql.rs:427
PostgresDriver::build_connection_opts (cognitive 35) src/database/postgresql.rs:437
What to do
- Resolve the 6 rainfrog finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with mod.rs (3), config.rs, sqlite.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 App finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with app.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Menu finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with menu.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
15 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.
FileTooLong: completion/mod.rs src/completion/mod.rs
MethodTooLong: App.run src/app.rs:293
ClassTooLong: App src/app.rs:75
FunctionTooLong: rainfrog::database::postgresql::parse_valuesrc/database/postgresql.rs:678
What to do
- Resolve the 6 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with mod.rs, app.rs, postgresql.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
- Resolve the 5 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with app.rs, vim.rs, menu.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with app.rs, menu.rs, data.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
48 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 4 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/database/postgresql.rs:477
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:204
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/components/favorites.rs:344
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/database/duckdb.rs:354
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:348
What to do
- Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with postgresql.rs (2), favorites.rs, connect_options.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
- Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with mysql.rs (3), connect_options.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with favorites.rs (2), postgresql.rs, mysql.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 30 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
194 test methods: 194 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 194 `#[test]` function(s) across 21 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 0 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
20 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.
Outdated: async-trait
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
Top hotspots: src/app.rs (10×113=1130); src/components/data.rs (7×37=259); src/components/editor.rs (8×20=160)
Hotspot: src/app.rs src/app.rs:293
What to do
- Resolve the 5 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with app.rs, data.rs, editor.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
3 deducted task-comment markers across 17149 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.
TodoComment src/utils.rs:144
What to do
- Resolve the 3 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with utils.rs, mysql.rs, duckdb.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README is a well-written marketing document that describes rainfrog as a lightweight terminal-based database tool with vim-like keybinding navigation and a wireframe demo, lists features (efficient navigation, query editor with keyword highlighting, session history, favorites, metadata shortcuts), explains why it is called 'rainfrog' via the frog metaphor, shows supported databases by tier level and a wire protocol table, and ends with a disclaimer. It also links to crates, repo, license, CI, built-with-Ratatui badges, and a table of contents; however, the README itself does not cover installation, usage examples, or contribution guidance (which is outside its scope), so those gaps are not flagged.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. — The repository's root README is a well-written marketing document that describes rainfrog as a lightweight terminal-based database tool with vim-like keybinding navigation and a wireframe demo, lists features (efficient navigation, query editor with keyword highlighting, session history, favorites, metadata shortcuts), explains why it is called 'rainfrog' via the frog metaphor, shows supported databases by tier level and a wire protocol table, and ends with a disclaimer. It also links to crates, repo, license, CI, built-with-Ratatui badges, and a table of contents; however, the README itself does not cover installation, usage examples, or contribution guidance (which is outside its scope), so those gaps are not flagged.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
No ADRs found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 1 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
34 finding(s): 0 critical, 33 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 29 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `src/utils.rs` (line 171, line 179, line 182, …) — 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.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 29 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 (29 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
10 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 10 medium, 0 low.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 4 Medium advisory (unsound) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 4 Medium vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
5 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 5 medium, 0 low.
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 5 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 26 of the 36 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX9 · CQS / query purity
Do you agree with this assessment?
ES1 · Fold determinism
Do you agree with this assessment?
ES2 · Immutable events
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
- No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
- Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
What to do
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever reaches the release trigger goes to production unreviewed, so a mistaken merge or tag is live before anyone can stop it.
What to do
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 78% | Adequate — gated by D2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 96% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 57% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 73% | Strong | Solid. |
| Security | 75% | Adequate — gated by D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Event Sourcing | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Performance | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 76 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — rainfrog-oracle Pulling rainfrog-postgres Pulling rainfrog-mysql Pulling rainfrog-oracle Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden rainfrog-mysql Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden rainfrog-postgres Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: rainfrog-postgres Pulling rainfrog-mysql Pulling rainfrog-oracle Pulling rainfrog-oracle Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden rainfrog-mysql Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden rainfrog-postgres Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~11 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 605 shipped crate(s) were read from its REDACTED, but crates.io could not be asked for the licence of 75 of them (HTTP 429 Unknown Error), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this Cargo build ships 1 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 1 value object(s); 2 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
- ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
- P8 Schema migrations — sqlx is declared, but the schema-migration mechanism could not be identified. Our limit, not a verdict on this repository.
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `#[bench]`, criterion's `bench_function`/`bench_with_input`, `#[divan::bench]` or `#[library_benchmark]` in any `.rs` file, or criterion, divan, iai or a `[[bench]]` target in a Cargo.toml, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 33 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
Serious — 138 finding(s)
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- rainfrog::completion::open_identifier_quote_position (cognitive 43) src/completion/mod.rs:1443
- rainfrog::completion::lexical_state (cognitive 26) src/completion/mod.rs:1529
- rainfrog::config::parse_color (cognitive 21) src/config.rs:539
- rainfrog::database::sqlite::parse_value (cognitive 18) src/database/sqlite.rs:453
- rainfrog::resolve_driver (cognitive 18) src/main.rs:58
- rainfrog::completion::path_candidates (cognitive 17) src/completion/mod.rs:911
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: completion/mod.rs src/completion/mod.rs
- FileTooLong: src/app.rs src/app.rs
- FileTooLong: database/postgresql.rs src/database/postgresql.rs
- FileTooLong: components/data.rs src/components/data.rs
- FileTooLong: database/mysql.rs src/database/mysql.rs
- FileTooLong: components/menu.rs src/components/menu.rs
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- Hotspot: src/app.rs src/app.rs:293
- Hotspot: src/components/data.rs src/components/data.rs:397
- Hotspot: src/components/editor.rs src/components/editor.rs:314
- Hotspot: src/components/menu.rs src/components/menu.rs:532
- Hotspot: src/completion/mod.rs src/completion/mod.rs:293
D3 · God Classes
- MethodTooLong: App.run src/app.rs:293
- MethodTooLong: Vim.transition src/vim.rs:117
- MethodTooLong: Menu.draw src/components/menu.rs:532
- MethodTooLong: Data.draw src/components/data.rs:558
- MethodTooLong: OracleDriver.get_query_results src/database/oracle/mod.rs:125
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/database/postgresql.rs:477
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/components/favorites.rs:164
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/database/oracle/connect_options.rs:113
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/database/postgresql.rs:471
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:780
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- rainfrog::config::parse_color (cyclomatic 21) src/config.rs:539
- rainfrog::completion::open_identifier_quote_position (cyclomatic 19) src/completion/mod.rs:1443
- rainfrog::completion::source_priority (cyclomatic 17) src/completion/mod.rs:1235
- rainfrog::database::sqlite::parse_value (cyclomatic 16) src/database/sqlite.rs:453
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:204
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:292
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:759
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/database/oracle/connect_options.rs:72
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/components/favorites.rs:344
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/database/postgresql.rs:852
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/components/favorites.rs:171
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:321
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/database/duckdb.rs:354
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:472
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:500
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/popups/confirm_export.rs:21
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment src/utils.rs:144
- TodoComment src/database/mysql.rs:799
- TodoComment src/database/duckdb.rs:528
D3 · God Classes
- ClassTooLong: App src/app.rs:75
- ClassTooLong: Menu src/components/menu.rs:64
- ClassTooLong: Data src/components/data.rs:61
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:348
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/database/oracle/connect_options.rs:88
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/database/postgresql.rs:745
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/components/editor.rs:507
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/components/editor.rs:517
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:116
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/database/mysql.rs:445
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/database/mysql.rs:564
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/database/mysql.rs:682
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- App::run (cyclomatic 113) src/app.rs:293
- App::draw_layout (cyclomatic 19) src/app.rs:758
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Menu::handle_key_events (cyclomatic 45) src/components/menu.rs:411
- Menu::draw (cyclomatic 29) src/components/menu.rs:532
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Data::handle_key_events (cyclomatic 37) src/components/data.rs:397
- Data::draw (cyclomatic 22) src/components/data.rs:558
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- App::run (cognitive 161) src/app.rs:293
- App::draw_layout (cognitive 25) src/app.rs:758
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Menu::handle_key_events (cognitive 55) src/components/menu.rs:411
- Menu::draw (cognitive 55) src/components/menu.rs:532
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- MySqlDriver::build_connection_opts (cognitive 39) src/database/mysql.rs:427
- MySqlDriver::get_query_results (cognitive 25) src/database/mysql.rs:157
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- PostgresDriver::build_connection_opts (cognitive 35) src/database/postgresql.rs:437
- PostgresDriver::get_query_results (cognitive 25) src/database/postgresql.rs:177
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Data::handle_key_events (cognitive 28) src/components/data.rs:397
- Data::draw (cognitive 19) src/components/data.rs:558
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- CompletionCoordinator::poll_database (cognitive 27) src/completion/mod.rs:293
- CompletionCoordinator::poll (cognitive 22) src/completion/mod.rs:142
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Favorites::draw (cognitive 19) src/components/favorites.rs:305
- Favorites::handle_key_events (cognitive 17) src/components/favorites.rs:213
D4 · Code Duplication
- Near-duplicate member pair (27 shared lines) src/database/mysql.rs:429
- Near-duplicate member pair (27 shared lines) src/database/mysql.rs:698
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:218
- Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) src/database/oracle/mod.rs:153
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:165
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:548
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/database/mysql.rs:347
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/database/mysql.rs:699
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src/database/postgresql.rs:814
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src/database/postgresql.rs:774
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Vim::transition (cyclomatic 65) src/vim.rs:117
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Favorites::handle_key_events (cyclomatic 22) src/components/favorites.rs:213
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Editor::transition_vim_state (cyclomatic 20) src/components/editor.rs:314
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- OracleConnectOptions::build_connection_opts (cyclomatic 20) src/database/oracle/connect_options.rs:60
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- CompletionCoordinator::poll_database (cyclomatic 16) src/completion/mod.rs:293
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- MySqlDriver::build_connection_opts (cyclomatic 16) src/database/mysql.rs:427
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- OracleConnectOptions::build_connection_opts (cognitive 55) src/database/oracle/connect_options.rs:60
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Vim::transition (cognitive 39) src/vim.rs:117
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- OracleDriver::get_query_results (cognitive 23) src/database/oracle/mod.rs:125
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Editor::transition_vim_state (cognitive 20) src/components/editor.rs:314
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- SqliteDriver::get_query_results (cognitive 19) src/database/sqlite.rs:104
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- FavoriteEntries::read_queries (cognitive 18) src/components/favorites.rs:112
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Tui::start (cognitive 18) src/tui.rs:126
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- History::draw (cognitive 16) src/components/history.rs:127
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
D3 · God Classes
- FunctionTooLong: rainfrog::database::postgresql::parse_value src/database/postgresql.rs:678
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication
- Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 26 shared lines) src/database/mysql.rs:563
D4 · Code Duplication
- Near-duplicate member pair (73 shared lines) src/database/mysql.rs:157
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:244
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) src/components/data.rs:659
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) src/database/mysql.rs:609
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) src/database/mysql.rs:641
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) src/database/mysql.rs:584
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/components/favorites.rs:367
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) src/database/mysql.rs:242
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) src/vim.rs:308
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/vim.rs:191
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (4–10 lines × 4) src/database/mysql.rs:750
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/database/mysql.rs:331
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 7) src/database/postgresql.rs:764
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/database/mysql.rs:486
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) src/database/postgresql.rs:448
Minor — 10 finding(s)
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No ADRs
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No architecture diagram/doc
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- No release approval gate
X7 · Silent fallback defaults
- Silent fallback default on Err src/completion/mod.rs:919
Minor — 20 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: async-trait
- Outdated: chrono
- Outdated: clap
- Outdated: csv
- Outdated: duckdb
- Outdated: futures
- Outdated: human-panic
- Outdated: indexmap
- Outdated: libc
- Outdated: log
- Outdated: rpassword
- Outdated: serde
- Outdated: serde_json
- Outdated: tempfile
- Outdated: tokio
- Outdated: tokio-util
- Outdated: tracing
- Outdated: tracing-subscriber
- Outdated: unicode-segmentation
- Outdated: unicode-width
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-1be86c4cbce14eee8ec6923afe47602c/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-1be86c4cbce14eee8ec6923afe47602c/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 34 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 10 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 5 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 0 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |