Public report of actix/actix-web, published 26 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 26 October 2026, 03:23 UTC · Survey ID cd_1cfeac4e2ed5477086805ff14c33c770

actix/actix-web

Measured 26 October 2026, 03:16 UTC, at code version 88d7742

Regression: 1 dimension fell since the last survey

A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.

CAI score 59out of 100 Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Down 1 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Performance 100 Exemplary Architecture 94 Exemplary Production Readiness 86 Strong Code Health 66 Adequate Maturity 63 Adequate Security and Compliance 46 Weak

A medium codebase: 64,930 lines of product code in 11 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.6 person-years · Weakest lens: Security and Compliance, 46

Findings by how serious they are

51 critical 251 serious 69 minor

23 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
26 October 2026, 03:16 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

48of 48 dimensions measured by tools.
348of 371 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 23 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
48dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 64,930 lines of product code in 11 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

actix/actix-web falls short of our standard for production, held back most by its Security and Compliance lens, the code's security and compliance. It scores 59 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, and 49 of its 51 critical findings are security problems.

Security and Compliance, at 46, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step is naming the access rules, worth about 9 points. Replacing the weak hashes comes next, worth about 7 points. Raising Security and Compliance to 70 would lift the score to about 69.

Forty-two pipeline tools are referenced by a changeable name, so the build pipeline can be tampered with. Two known security holes in the packages the code depends on can be used by attackers, and two passwords or keys are open to anyone who can read the repository. Pinning each tool to an exact version, updating the vulnerable packages and replacing each exposed password or key would close these risks. Limiting each secret to its own step would fix the two secrets exposed to more of the pipeline than needed, and setting a waiting period for automatic updates would deal with the automatic dependency update that takes a new release at once. The two parts of the code nobody has worked on for a long time need someone to learn and document them before anyone changes them.

The product code is 64,930 lines, about €82,000 to rebuild.

Code Health 66 Adequate, capped by Structured logging Architecture 94 ★ Exemplary Maturity 63 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 86 Strong Security and Compliance 46 Weak, capped by Supply-chain Provenance & Signing and Access Controls Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Security and Compliance 46 · counts for 46%Maturity 63 · counts for 25%Code Health 66 · counts for 14%Production Readiness 86 · counts for 8%Architecture 94 · counts for 4%Performance 100 · counts for 2%

If Security and Compliance rose from 46 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 59 to about 69.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 84%Tests 16%
New since the last survey: 63 findings

These 63 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 12 October 2026.

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 4 findings

These 4 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 12 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

  • Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) actix-web/src/server.rs
  • Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair: actix-http/src/ws/frame.rs actix-http/src/ws/frame.rs
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €82,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€27,000 to €140,000, for 456 to 1,446 hours of work, about 0.6 person-years for 1 to 2 engineers
Difficulty of the problemStandard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×0.8 at a score of 59. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
SizeMedium: 64,930 lines of product code
What it is notNot a quotation: nobody has offered to build it for that. Not a valuation: it says nothing about what the business is worth. Not a certified figure: no professional has signed it as one.

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

1
Name the access rules — roles and permissions declared once (an enum Role/Permission, actix-web-grants #[protect(…)], axum-login's permission_required!, a casbin or oso policy) and consulted where access is checked, so the rule set is reviewable and testable on its own.
Raises the score by about 9 points · Medium effort · Access Controls
2
Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (xxhash, murmurhash) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key.
Raises the score by about 7 points · Medium effort · Web-Security Posture
3
Record your significant design decisions.
Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Raises the score by about 3 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €82,000 to build again, about 0.6 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 46 (Weak). Security and Compliance is about how well the product is protected, and how it handles personal data. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Security and Compliance also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Security and Compliance grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Security and Compliance actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Name the access rules — roles and permissions declared once (an enum Role/Permission, actix-web-grants #[protect(…)], axum-login's permission_required!, a casbin or oso policy) and consulted where access is checked, so the rule set is reviewable and testable on its own. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 9 points for medium effort. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways, which only happens where the projects form a dependency cycle. A graph without cycles has none.

arch actix-files actix-files actix-http actix-http actix-files->actix-http actix-web actix-web actix-files->actix-web actix-http-test actix-http-test awc awc actix-http-test->awc actix-multipart actix-multipart actix-multipart-derive actix-multipart-derive actix-multipart->actix-multipart-derive actix-multipart->actix-web actix-router actix-router actix-test actix-test actix-test->actix-http actix-test->actix-http-test actix-test->actix-web actix-test->awc actix-web->actix-http actix-web->actix-router actix-web-codegen actix-web-codegen actix-web->actix-web-codegen actix-web-actors actix-web-actors actix-web-actors->actix-http actix-web-actors->actix-web actix-web-codegen->actix-router awc->actix-http

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

201 modules, with 559 dependencies between them. 5 loops run through 56 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 161 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 actix_http.body.size2 actix_http.config3 actix_http.extensions4 actix_http.h15 actix_http.header.into_value6 actix_http.header.map7 actix_router.path8 actix_router.resource9 awc.middleware10 actix_http.body.message_body11 actix_http.header12 actix_http.message13 actix_http.service14 actix_multipart.field15 actix_web.config16 actix_web.extract17 actix_http.h1.codec18 actix_http.requests.head19 actix_http.requests.request20 actix_web.service21 awc.client22 actix_web.app_service23 actix_web.response.response24 actix_web.error.response_error25 actix_web.response.responder26 actix_http.responses.response27 actix_http.h1.dispatcher28 actix_multipart.form29 actix_multipart.form.bytes30 actix_http.h1.decoder31 actix_http.responses.head32 actix_http.encoding.encoder33 actix_http.h2.dispatcher34 actix_http.error35 actix_http.h1.payload36 actix_web.request37 awc.responses.response38 actix_files.named39 actix_multipart.multipart40 actix_http.h1.client
1 actix_http.body.size
2 actix_http.config
3 actix_http.extensions
4 actix_http.h1
5 actix_http.header.into_value
6 actix_http.header.map
7 actix_router.path
8 actix_router.resource
9 awc.middleware
10 actix_http.body.message_body2
11 actix_http.header1
12 actix_http.message1
13 actix_http.service21
14 actix_multipart.field2
15 actix_web.config12
16 actix_web.extract11
17 actix_http.h1.codec111311
18 actix_http.requests.head2211
19 actix_http.requests.request1111111
20 actix_web.service12151112
21 awc.client21
22 actix_web.app_service212111
23 actix_web.response.response2111111
24 actix_web.error.response_error1
25 actix_web.response.responder11
26 actix_http.responses.response1111111221
27 actix_http.h1.dispatcher212111121
28 actix_multipart.form41215
29 actix_multipart.form.bytes1111111211
30 actix_http.h1.decoder1111
31 actix_http.responses.head1111
32 actix_http.encoding.encoder2212
33 actix_http.h2.dispatcher121111
34 actix_http.error31
35 actix_http.h1.payload132
36 actix_web.request221211121
37 awc.responses.response1111
38 actix_files.named212112
39 actix_multipart.multipart111112
40 actix_http.h1.client211311
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 actix_http.body.size2 actix_http.config3 actix_http.extensions4 actix_http.h15 actix_http.header.into_value6 actix_http.header.map7 actix_router.path8 actix_router.resource9 awc.middleware10 actix_http.body.message_body11 actix_http.header12 actix_http.message13 actix_http.service14 actix_multipart.field15 actix_web.config16 actix_web.extract17 actix_http.h1.codec18 actix_http.requests.head19 actix_http.requests.request20 actix_web.service21 awc.client22 actix_web.app_service23 actix_web.response.response24 actix_web.error.response_error25 actix_web.response.responder26 actix_http.responses.response27 actix_http.h1.dispatcher28 actix_multipart.form29 actix_multipart.form.bytes30 actix_http.h1.decoder31 actix_http.responses.head32 actix_http.encoding.encoder33 actix_http.h2.dispatcher34 actix_http.error35 actix_http.h1.payload36 actix_web.request37 awc.responses.response38 actix_files.named39 actix_multipart.multipart40 actix_http.h1.clientactix_http.body.size1actix_http.config2actix_http.extensions3actix_http.h14actix_http.header.into_value5actix_http.header.map6actix_router.path7actix_router.resource8awc.middleware9actix_http.body.message_body10actix_http.header11actix_http.message12actix_http.service13actix_multipart.field14actix_web.config15actix_web.extract16actix_http.h1.codec17actix_http.requests.head18actix_http.requests.request19actix_web.service20awc.client21actix_web.app_service22actix_web.response.response23actix_web.error.response_error24actix_web.response.responder25actix_http.responses.response26actix_http.h1.dispatcher27actix_multipart.form28actix_multipart.form.bytes29actix_http.h1.decoder30actix_http.responses.head31actix_http.encoding.encoder32actix_http.h2.dispatcher33actix_http.error34actix_http.h1.payload35actix_web.request36awc.responses.response37actix_files.named38actix_multipart.multipart39actix_http.h1.client40211212121111131122111111111121511122121211121111111111111111221212111121412151111111211111111112212121111311322212111211111212112111112211311+161 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 66% · Adequate · gated by X4 ·

The Good
D3 · Rust God Classes 9.0 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.6 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.9 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0
The Bad
D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 6.2 D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 6.0
The Ugly
X4 · Repo Structured logging 2.5

At a glance — Architecture · 94% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D5 · Rust Coupling 8.5 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.7 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 7.8 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.1 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 63% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good
D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.8 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 8.6 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 9.4 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0
The Bad
M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.5
The Ugly
M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 3.0

At a glance — Readiness · 86% · Strong ·

The Good
D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 8.2 D13 · Rust REDACTED Scanning 10.0 D14 · Rust License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 7.4 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 8.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

At a glance — Security · 46% · Weak · gated by D36, C2 ·

The Good
D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 8.0 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 7.2 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0
The Bad
D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 6.0
The Ugly
D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 3.3 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 4.5

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 10.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2025 — Injection45High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures15High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures3High / Critical

Roadmap

First, centralize access control by defining roles and permissions in a single, testable location to ensure rules are reviewable. Second, strengthen web security by replacing weak cryptographic hashes with secure alternatives and addressing missing security headers and cookie configurations. Third, document significant design decisions using a structured format to preserve architectural context. Finally, improve developer experience by implementing structured logging and adding a quick-start section to the README.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Name the access rules — roles and permissions declared once (an enum Role/Permission, actix-web-grants #[protect(…)], axum-login's permission_required!, a casbin or oso policy) and consulted where access is checked, so the rule set is reviewable and testable on its own.+8.9 ptsMediumAccess Controls
Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (xxhash, murmurhash) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key.+7.1 ptsMediumWeb-Security Posture
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.+3.4 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging+3.2 ptsMediumStructured logging
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2).+1.5 ptsLowSecrets (history)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.+1.5 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2).+1.5 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+1.5 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 91 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 1% slop · 59% mixed · 40% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED1.6SlopDependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED4.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs5.5MixedCognitive Complexity: Decoder::poll_next (cognitive 32)
actix-http/src/h1/service.rs5.7MixedCode Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
awc/src/request.rs5.9MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: ClientRequest
actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
actix-multipart/src/field.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
awc/src/client/h1proto.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
actix-http/src/h1/utils.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
actix-http/src/ws/frame.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
actix-web/src/resource.rs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
actix-files/src/service.rs6.3MixedCyclomatic Complexity: FilesService::call (cyclomatic 32)
actix-http/src/builder.rs6.3MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (13 lines × 3)
actix-web-codegen/src/route.rs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 51

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 — 251

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 — 69

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

Could not be resolved — 23

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. 48 of 48 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 48 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D26D28D29D30D34D35D36D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9C2M1M2M3P1P10P2P3P6PF1PF3S1X1X14X15X21X27X28X29X30X4

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. 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, 348 of 371 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. 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.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement—◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a17635-a67e-7517-a6ce-183bd5f9bf81.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

  • D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a Codecov configuration (.codecov.yml) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.rs), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number 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, 167 test files), but it was not re-run: its build outgrew the 6 GB scratch ceiling (6.001 GB measured) and was stopped; its suite was not run. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D19 Documentation Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Each ecosystem's manifests (what makes a folder runnable or a published package) need their own proof before D19 judges its units. Until then those folders' READMEs are judged only as documents (boilerplate, structure), never counted as complete.
  • D21 Naming Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — 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's deterministic call-shape rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. This says nothing about whether that surface is consistent.
  • D24 Comment Value — 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's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
  • D27 Navigability — 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. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
  • 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.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and Java, TypeScript/JavaScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go, JavaScript or TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • 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 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality publishes two things only: a runnable or packaged unit with no example, and a multi-project root README that maps none of its parts. It does not judge clarity, and its other checks (overview, licence, boilerplate, structure, empty sections, XML-doc coverage) are withheld after adjudication: their candidates are counted in the card's gaps, not shown as rows. A false statement in a document is M4's; units are .NET projects only.
  • 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.
  • 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 Dockerfile (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.
  • 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.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

36 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was TupleFromRequest16::poll at 82. A further 3 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 Charset::label at 25 — 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: actix-http/src/header/shared/charset.rs (Charset::label at 25), actix-web/src/http/header/cache_control.rs (CacheDirective::from_str at 16). 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.

MessageType::set_headers (cyclomatic 36) · ×2actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:75
InnerDispatcher::poll_response (cyclomatic 32) · ×2actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:598
TupleFromRequest16::poll (cyclomatic 82)actix-web/src/extract.rs:351
TupleFromRequest15::poll (cyclomatic 77)actix-web/src/extract.rs:351
TupleFromRequest14::poll (cyclomatic 72)actix-web/src/extract.rs:351

+ 29 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 36 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with TupleFromRequest16::poll (cyclomatic 82), TupleFromRequest15::poll (cyclomatic 77), TupleFromRequest14::poll (cyclomatic 72). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 36 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 6.2 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

61 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Dispatcher::poll at 81.

Dispatcher::poll (cognitive 81) · ×4actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1310
actix_web::introspection::shadowed_route_context (cognitive 28) · ×4actix-web/src/introspection.rs:690
InnerDispatcher::poll_response (cognitive 67) · ×3actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:598
awc::client::h1proto::send_request (cognitive 29) · ×3awc/src/client/h1proto.rs:27
Inner::poll (cognitive 73) · ×2actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs:390

+ 42 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 61 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with Dispatcher::poll (cognitive 81), Inner::poll (cognitive 73), FilesService::call (cognitive 68). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 61 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 6.0 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D3 · God Classes9.0 / 10Stronggated by 17 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

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

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

MethodTooLong: Connector.finish · ×7awc/src/client/connector.rs:424
FileTooLong: h1/dispatcher.rs · ×5actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs
TooManyMethods: HttpServer · ×4actix-web/src/server.rs:75
TooManyFunctions: actix_web::error::internalactix-web/src/error/internal.rs:132

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with dispatcher.rs (2), connector.rs, ws.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with dispatcher.rs, service.rs, server.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 4 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with request.rs (2), server.rs, service.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  4. Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.6 / 10Stronggated by 60 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

55 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 5 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×7actix-multipart/src/field.rs:178
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×6actix-http/src/body/body_stream.rs:56
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×4actix-files/src/named.rs:494
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×4actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:664
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×3actix-router/src/de.rs:143

+ 28 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with head.rs (3), field.rs, app_service.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with lib.rs (2), body_stream.rs, decoder.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with named.rs, ws.rs, message.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D5 · Coupling8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

11 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 2 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 9 of the 11 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: actix-http · ×2

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.7 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

3 of 140 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: H1Service (LCOM4 7) · ×3actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:29

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with service.rs (2), request.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1097 test methods: 879 unit, 218 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 1097 `#[test]` function(s) across 167 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 31 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.8 8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 83% · ceiling Verified

3 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. 63 of 76 direct crates were graded against crates.io (0 not published there, 13 not resolved by a committed REDACTED). Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.

Outdated: brotli · ×3

What to do

  1. Maintain Dependency Hygiene — already on the Gold path. — No findings, and enforcement is at this dimension's ceiling.

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 320 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository. This repository publishes itself under MIT OR Apache-2.0, which is its own choice and is not judged here.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.8 / 10Stronggated by 11 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: actix-files/src/named.rs (10×29=290); actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs (4×36=144); actix-http/src/ws/frame.rs (7×15=105) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: actix-http/src/ws/mod.rs (7 of 8 changes were fixes); actix-files/src/lib.rs (5 of 7 changes were fixes); actix-multipart/src/error.rs (3 of 3 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: actix-files/src/named.rs · ×8actix-files/src/named.rs:447
Repeated repair: actix-http/src/ws/mod.rs · ×3actix-http/src/ws/mod.rs:181

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with named.rs, decoder.rs, frame.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with mod.rs, lib.rs, error.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

D16 · Bus Factor8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

23 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is actix-router/src/resource.rs. Counted over 172 of the 220 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×3

What to do

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

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

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Stronggated by 48 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

48 deducted task-comment markers across 64930 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.9. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×46awc/src/error.rs:3
FixmeComment · ×2awc/src/sender.rs:74

What to do

  1. Resolve the 46 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with mod.rs (4), multipart.rs (4), frame.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (46 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with sender.rs, test.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D19 · Documentation Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Every README, docs/ document and root guide parsed by its markup and measured in Unicode letters. Published: a runnable or packaged .NET project whose README (or a document it links, or a root guide) shows no example, and a root README naming none of three or more projects. Overview, licence, boilerplate, wall-of-text, empty-section and XML-doc rows are measured and withheld (counted in gaps) after adjudication. Deterministic, exhaustive, advisory.

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

1 of 1 documentation facets pass in full. 13 document(s) read across 1 unit(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 of 9 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

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

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

D28 · Secrets (history)8.0 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

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

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

45 finding(s): 0 critical, 45 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 42 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. 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
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 41 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 (41 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
  3. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 1 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 (1 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities7.2 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

10 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 8 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 3 Medium vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.4 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

9 of 172 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is actix-web/src/introspection.rs. Counted over 172 of the 220 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned knowledge · ×2actix-web/src/introspection.rs:1
Orphaned file · ×7actix-files/src/range.rs:1
Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with introspection.rs, pool.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 7 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with range.rs, context.rs, tempfile.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: decoder.rs↔encoder.rs 61%; builder.rs↔dispatcher.rs 50%

Change coupling: decoder.rs ↔ encoder.rs · ×2actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with decoder.rs, builder.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

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

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

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C2 · Access Controls3.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

  • Authorization IS enforced here (by route guards, auth middleware or checks that refuse a caller) — this is NOT a claim that endpoints are unprotected. What's missing is a NAMED rule set: who may do what is encoded inline where it is checked, so the rules can't be listed, reviewed or tested apart from the code that applies them. Recommendation, not a defect.
  • Only 2 place(s) refuse an unauthorized caller — too few to demonstrate default-deny across handlers.

What to do

  • Name the access rules — roles and permissions declared once (an enum Role/Permission, actix-web-grants #[protect(…)], axum-login's permission_required!, a casbin or oso policy) and consulted where access is checked, so the rule set is reviewable and testable on its own.
  • Enforce authorization at every handler — a guard on each route, or a global authentication guard/middleware with explicit public opt-outs, so protected-by-default is demonstrable.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.
M2 · Architecture documentation3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

P2 · Observability7.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 8/10 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `actix-web-actors`, `actix-web-codegen`.

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
  • Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.
P3 · Security & performance tooling8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

PF1 · Benchmark discipline10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

S1 · Web-Security Posture4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Read from this repository's Rust source: cryptographic hygiene (weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source) and outbound TLS (certificate validation, protocol version) — facts about code that hold whether or not it serves anything itself. This repository serves HTTP itself (`HttpServiceBuilder::default(` (actix-http/src/service.rs:90)), so its Rust source was also read for the server controls: TLS served or HSTS set, security response headers, cookie flags and inbound validation — each credited where its Rust spelling appears in production source, not proven on every route. A Rocket 0.5 application is credited the headers Rocket's default `Shield` sends unless it attaches its own, and its cookie jar's SameSite=Strict default; a session middleware its default cookie flags.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

  • MD5/SHA1 is computed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ (`sha2::Sha256::digest(…)`) for content integrity, or a KDF (bcrypt/Argon2/scrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, an avatar URL, an ETag), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as xxhash or murmurhash says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. Where a protocol this code does not own fixes the digest (a k-anonymity range query, a legacy signature format), the protocol decides; say so beside the call. — actix-http/src/ws/proto.rs:238
  • Set: Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy, Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy, Cross-Origin-Resource-Policy, Permissions-Policy. Missing: Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options — the four headers that carry the points of this card's security-headers term (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options), 0.5 each.(−2.0 on this card.) The server: `HttpServiceBuilder::default(` (actix-http/src/service.rs:90).
  • This repository's Rust server sets cookies (actix-web/src/response/builder.rs:259 — `Set-Cookie` header) and no `secure`, `http_only` or `same_site` flag is switched on anywhere, nor are its cookies Rocket's or a session middleware's, which carry flags by default. (−1.5 on this card.)

What to do

  • Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (xxhash, murmurhash) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key.
  • Add Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options beside the headers the Rust server already sets.
  • Flag the cookies the server sets: `Cookie::build((name, value)).secure(true).http_only(true).same_site(SameSite::Lax)` — or actix-session's `SessionMiddleware`/tower-sessions' `SessionManagerLayer`, which flag their cookie by default — on every session and auth cookie.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `for` loop leaves the `RefCell` it is walking alone — safe Rust rejects a body that changes the collection its loop borrows at compile time, except through interior mutability: a `RefCell` borrowed in the loop's header stays borrowed until the loop ends, so a `borrow_mut()` of it inside the body panics with `already borrowed: BorrowMutError` and the remaining elements are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X4 · Structured logging2.5 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

  • `error!` at line 702 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-router/src/resource.rs:702
  • `error!` at line 726 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-router/src/resource.rs:726
  • `error!` at line 833 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/service.rs:833
  • `error!` at line 839 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/service.rs:839
  • `error!` at line 847 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/service.rs:847
  • `error!` at line 952 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/service.rs:952
  • `trace!` at line 1125 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/service.rs:1125
  • `error!` at line 264 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/ws/codec.rs:264
  • `debug!` at line 377 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/ws/dispatcher.rs:377
  • `debug!` at line 427 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/ws/dispatcher.rs:427
  • `trace!` at line 149 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h2/dispatcher.rs:149
  • `warn!` at line 152 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `warn!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h2/dispatcher.rs:152
  • `error!` at line 155 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h2/dispatcher.rs:155
  • `error!` at line 460 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:460
  • `trace!` at line 543 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:543
  • `trace!` at line 156 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/chunked.rs:156
  • `debug!` at line 109 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:109
  • `debug!` at line 119 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:119
  • `debug!` at line 125 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:125
  • `debug!` at line 155 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:155
  • `trace!` at line 575 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:575
  • `error!` at line 1320 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1320
  • `trace!` at line 1325 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1325
  • `error!` at line 1466 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1466
  • `trace!` at line 1499 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1499
  • `trace!` at line 1524 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1524
  • `trace!` at line 1527 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1527
  • `trace!` at line 1531 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1531
  • `trace!` at line 1535 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1535
  • `error!` at line 482 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:482
  • `error!` at line 488 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:488
  • `error!` at line 497 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:497
  • `error!` at line 535 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:535
  • `trace!` at line 28 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/timer.rs:28
  • `trace!` at line 43 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/timer.rs:43
  • `trace!` at line 47 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/h1/timer.rs:47
  • `trace!` at line 412 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/encoding/encoder.rs:412
  • `trace!` at line 421 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/encoding/encoder.rs:421
  • `trace!` at line 430 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/encoding/encoder.rs:430
  • `trace!` at line 439 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`. — actix-http/src/encoding/encoder.rs:439

What to do

  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health66%Adequate — gated by X4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture94%ExemplarySolid.
Maturity63%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness86%StrongSolid.
Security46%Weak — gated by D36, C2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 3 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 2 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 68 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — 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
  • AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~12380 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; Rust not measured.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — API consistency is measured on C# only; the exposed Rust surface was not measured.
  • 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, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. 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 — D24 reads C# and Visual Basic comments only — this repository's production source is .rs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.rs), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
  • 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.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (58 value object(s))
  • ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. 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
  • M4 Documentation accuracy — Not applicable: the 13 current-state document(s) make no claim of a kind M4 checks.
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
  • 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 — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • 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.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — 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
  • X13 Undrained process stream — 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
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — 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
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — 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
  • X18 Disposal-pattern 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
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — 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
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Rust was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Rust request takes no token: a future is cancelled by dropping it, from outside the call (select!, a timeout, an aborted task), and reqwest, hyper and tonic take none
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — 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
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — 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
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — 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
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — 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
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Rust's compiler refuses the unsynchronised version: a collection shared between a callback's thread and the waiting body must be `Sync`, which a `Vec`, `VecDeque` or `HashMap` is only behind a `Mutex`/`RwLock`, so the race this check looks for cannot be written in safe Rust. Not a gap in the analyzer and 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
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • 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.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Critical — 51 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
  • REDACTED
  • + 16 more in this group — see findings.md.
D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×2
  • Orphaned knowledge actix-web/src/introspection.rs:1 — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away, so if it breaks, no one currently understands it. It does carry its own tests, so the behaviour is pinned even though the understanding is gone: schedule a read-through, using those tests as the specification, before the next change lands here.
  • Orphaned knowledge awc/src/client/pool.rs:1 — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away, so if it breaks, no one currently understands it. It does carry its own tests, so the behaviour is pinned even though the understanding is gone: schedule a read-through, using those tests as the specification, before the next change lands here.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
Serious — 251 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×46
  • TodoComment awc/src/error.rs:3 — // TODO: figure out how best to expose http::Error vs actix_http::Error — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment awc/src/lib.rs:133 — // TODO: figure out how best to expose http::Error vs actix_http::Error — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment awc/src/error.rs:15 — // TODO: address display, error, and from impls — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment awc/src/client/connection.rs:169 — // TODO: this can end up sending extraneous requests; see if there is a better way to handle — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment awc/src/client/h1proto.rs:104 — // TODO: use a new variant or a new type better describing error violate — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment awc/src/client/h2proto.rs:97 — // TODO: consider skipping other headers according to: — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment awc/src/client/mod.rs:185 — // TODO: use `Method::QUERY` once the `http` dependency is bumped (see #3384).
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/test/test_request.rs:115 — // TODO: use `Method::QUERY` once the `http` dependency is bumped (see #3384).
  • TodoComment actix-web-codegen/src/route.rs:421 — // TODO(breaking): remove this force-pub forwards-compatibility feature — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-web/tests/compression.rs:360 — // TODO: fix test — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/info.rs:122 — // TODO: implement https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7239#section-5.1
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/resource.rs:228 — /// todo!() — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/route.rs:120 — // TODO(breaking): remove pass by ref mut — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/scope.rs:196 — // TODO: add Extensions::is_empty check and conditionally insert data — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/service.rs:125 — /// # todo!() — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/test/mod.rs:24 — // TODO: more docs on generally how testing works with these parts — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/http/header/accept.rs:154 — // TODO: method for getting best content encoding based on q-factors, available from server side — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/http/header/macros.rs:96 — // TODO: these docs are wrong, there's no $n or $nn — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/guard/host.rs:113 — // TODO: is this the correct behavior? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-web/src/error/response_error.rs:24 — // TODO: flesh out documentation — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-multipart/src/field.rs:429 — // TODO: use test utility when multi-file support is introduced — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs:630 — // TODO: use test utility when multi-file support is introduced — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs:314 — // TODO: need to read epilogue — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs:316 — // TODO: this might be okay as a let Some() else return Ok(None) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs:494 — // TODO: check out other multipart/* RFCs for specific requirements — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • + 21 more in this group — see findings.md.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×8
  • Hotspot: actix-files/src/named.rs actix-files/src/named.rs:447 — actix-files/src/named.rs changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 29 in NamedFile::into_response at line 447. 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- actix-files/src/named.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:75 — actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 36 in MessageType::set_headers at line 75. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: actix-http/src/ws/frame.rs actix-http/src/ws/frame.rs:66 — actix-http/src/ws/frame.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in Parser::parse_metadata at line 66. 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- actix-http/src/ws/frame.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: actix-multipart/src/field.rs actix-multipart/src/field.rs:288 — actix-multipart/src/field.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 22 in InnerField::read_stream at line 288. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- actix-multipart/src/field.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: actix-http/src/header/shared/quality_item.rs actix-http/src/header/shared/quality_item.rs:95 — actix-http/src/header/shared/quality_item.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 21 in QualityItem::from_str at line 95. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- actix-http/src/header/shared/quality_item.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: actix-http/src/ws/codec.rs actix-http/src/ws/codec.rs:224 — actix-http/src/ws/codec.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in Codec::decode at line 224. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- actix-http/src/ws/codec.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: actix-http/src/h1/encoder.rs actix-http/src/h1/encoder.rs:60 — actix-http/src/h1/encoder.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 28 in MessageType::encode_headers at line 60. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 1 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- actix-http/src/h1/encoder.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: awc/src/ws.rs awc/src/ws.rs:264 — awc/src/ws.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 26 in WebsocketsRequest::connect at line 264. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 1 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- awc/src/ws.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×7
  • MethodTooLong: Connector.finish awc/src/client/connector.rs:424 — MethodTooLong — finish runs 170 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 70 over it, 1.70× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: WebsocketsRequest.connect awc/src/ws.rs:264 — MethodTooLong — connect runs 111 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 11 over it, 1.11× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: InnerDispatcher.poll_response actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:598 — MethodTooLong — poll_response runs 110 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 10 over it, 1.10× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: NamedFile.into_response actix-files/src/named.rs:447 — MethodTooLong — into_response runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: MessageType.encode_headers actix-http/src/h1/encoder.rs:60 — MethodTooLong — encode_headers runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: MessageType.set_headers actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:75 — MethodTooLong — set_headers runs 102 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.02× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: Dispatcher.poll actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1310 — MethodTooLong — poll runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×7
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) actix-multipart/src/field.rs:178 — actix-multipart/src/field.rs:178-187 | actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs:204-210 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) actix-web/src/app_service.rs:100 — actix-web/src/app_service.rs:100-106 | actix-web/src/scope.rs:424-430 — before extracting anything, compare `actix-web/src/app_service.rs` and `actix-web/src/scope.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) actix-web/src/resource.rs:423 — actix-web/src/resource.rs:423-429 | actix-web/src/service.rs:649-655 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) awc/src/request.rs:499 — awc/src/request.rs:499-505 | awc/src/ws.rs:448-455 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) actix-http/src/requests/head.rs:74 — actix-http/src/requests/head.rs:74-80 | actix-http/src/responses/head.rs:49-55 — `actix-http/src/requests/head.rs` and `actix-http/src/responses/head.rs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) actix-http/src/requests/head.rs:84 — actix-http/src/requests/head.rs:84-90 | actix-http/src/responses/head.rs:59-65 — `actix-http/src/requests/head.rs` and `actix-http/src/responses/head.rs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) actix-http/src/requests/head.rs:134 — actix-http/src/requests/head.rs:134-140 | actix-http/src/responses/head.rs:125-131 — `actix-http/src/requests/head.rs` and `actix-http/src/responses/head.rs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) actix-http/src/body/body_stream.rs:56 — actix-http/src/body/body_stream.rs:56-66 | actix-http/src/body/sized_stream.rs:59-69 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:214 — actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:214-224 | actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:276-286 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) awc/src/request.rs:418 — awc/src/request.rs:418-428 | awc/src/ws.rs:275-285 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) actix-http-test/src/lib.rs:292 — actix-http-test/src/lib.rs:292-302 | actix-test/src/lib.rs:758-768 — before extracting anything, compare `actix-http-test/src/lib.rs` and `actix-test/src/lib.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) actix-http-test/src/lib.rs:306 — actix-http-test/src/lib.rs:306-316 | actix-test/src/lib.rs:772-782 — before extracting anything, compare `actix-http-test/src/lib.rs` and `actix-test/src/lib.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) actix-http/src/responses/builder.rs:152 — actix-http/src/responses/builder.rs:152-162 | actix-web/src/response/builder.rs:169-179 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×5
  • FileTooLong: h1/dispatcher.rs actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs — FileTooLong — 826 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 326 over it, 1.65× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/service.rs actix-http/src/service.rs — FileTooLong — 767 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 267 over it, 1.53× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/server.rs actix-web/src/server.rs — FileTooLong — 755 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 255 over it, 1.51× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: client/connector.rs awc/src/client/connector.rs — FileTooLong — 676 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 176 over it, 1.35× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/introspection.rs actix-web/src/introspection.rs — FileTooLong — 649 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 149 over it, 1.30× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Dispatcher · ×4
  • Dispatcher::poll (cognitive 81) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1310 — Dispatcher::poll has cognitive complexity 81 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (64 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 51). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
  • Dispatcher::poll (cognitive 32) actix-http/src/h2/dispatcher.rs:110 — Dispatcher::poll has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (18 pts), if/else 3 (9 pts), loops 2 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
  • Dispatcher::poll (cognitive 20) actix-http/src/ws/dispatcher.rs:404 — Dispatcher::poll has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • Dispatcher::poll_write (cognitive 16) actix-http/src/ws/dispatcher.rs:340 — Dispatcher::poll_write has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · actix_web · ×4
  • actix_web::introspection::shadowed_route_context (cognitive 28) actix-web/src/introspection.rs:690 — actix_web::introspection::shadowed_route_context has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (20 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • actix_web::introspection::has_conflicting_methods (cognitive 24) actix-web/src/introspection.rs:803 — actix_web::introspection::has_conflicting_methods has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 24 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function items inside it that branch (guard_possible_methods, split_top_level_args, union_methods, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
  • actix_web::introspection::shadowed_scope_context (cognitive 21) actix-web/src/introspection.rs:639 — actix_web::introspection::shadowed_scope_context has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • actix_web::introspection::analyze_reachability (cognitive 19) actix-web/src/introspection.rs:596 — actix_web::introspection::analyze_reachability has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×4
  • TooManyMethods: HttpServer actix-web/src/server.rs:75 — TooManyMethods — 47 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 17 over it, 1.57× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
  • TooManyMethods: ServiceRequest actix-web/src/service.rs:75 — TooManyMethods — 39 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 9 over it, 1.30× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
  • TooManyMethods: HttpRequest actix-web/src/request.rs:38 — TooManyMethods — 33 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 3 over it, 1.10× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
  • TooManyMethods: ClientRequest awc/src/request.rs:44 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×4
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) actix-files/src/named.rs:494 — actix-files/src/named.rs:494-499 | actix-files/src/named.rs:515-520 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) actix-web-actors/src/ws.rs:543 — actix-web-actors/src/ws.rs:543-548 | actix-web-actors/src/ws.rs:582-587 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) actix-http/src/message.rs:101 — actix-http/src/message.rs:101-106 | actix-http/src/responses/head.rs:194-200 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) actix-web/src/app.rs:311 — actix-web/src/app.rs:311-316 | actix-web/src/config.rs:416-421 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:664 — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:664-668 | actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:812-816 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) actix-http-test/src/lib.rs:268 — actix-http-test/src/lib.rs:268-272 | actix-test/src/lib.rs:734-738 — before extracting anything, compare `actix-http-test/src/lib.rs` and `actix-test/src/lib.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) actix-web-actors/src/context.rs:116 — actix-web-actors/src/context.rs:116-120 | actix-web-actors/src/ws.rs:499-503 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) actix-web/src/http/header/content_range.rs:192 — actix-web/src/http/header/content_range.rs:192-196 | actix-web/src/http/header/if_range.rs:100-104 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×3
  • Repeated repair: actix-http/src/ws/mod.rs actix-http/src/ws/mod.rs:181 — actix-http/src/ws/mod.rs changed 8 times in last 90 days and 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 12 (its worst body is actix_http::ws::verify_handshake at line 181), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(actix-http): reject out-of-range WebSocket payload lengths (#4323)”; “fix(http): advertise upgrades without changing connection state (#4300)”; “fix(ws): return 426 Upgrade Required on unsupported version (RFC 6455 §4.2.2) (#4295)”; “fix(ws): validate 16-byte base64 nonce in Sec-WebSocket-Key (RFC 6455 §4.2.1) (#4296)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- actix-http/src/ws/mod.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Repeated repair: actix-files/src/lib.rs actix-files/src/lib.rs:61 — actix-files/src/lib.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days and 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 1 (its worst body is actix_files::file_extension_to_mime at line 61), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(actix-files): handle range units per RFC 9110 (#4340)”; “fix(files): apply conditional response rules by request method (#4339)”; “fix(files): evaluate preconditions before range requests (#4336)”; “fix(files): give If-Match precedence over If-Unmodified-Since (#4338)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- actix-files/src/lib.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Repeated repair: actix-multipart/src/error.rs actix-multipart/src/error.rs:100 — actix-multipart/src/error.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 3 (its worst body is Error::status_code at line 100), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “test(multipart): fix tests”; “chore: revert error display source appending”; “fix(multipart): include inner error in Payload and Parse display strings (#4186)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 19:02:22 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 19:02:22 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- actix-multipart/src/error.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · InnerDispatcher · ×3
  • InnerDispatcher::poll_response (cognitive 67) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:598 — InnerDispatcher::poll_response has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (38 pts), match/switch 6 (19 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 43). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • InnerDispatcher::poll_request (cognitive 35) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:911 — InnerDispatcher::poll_request has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (23 pts), match/switch 3 (9 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • InnerDispatcher::read_available (cognitive 20) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1192 — InnerDispatcher::read_available has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · awc · ×3
  • awc::client::h1proto::send_request (cognitive 29) awc/src/client/h1proto.rs:27 — awc::client::h1proto::send_request has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (19 pts), if/else 8 (9 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
  • awc::client::h2proto::send_body (cognitive 19) awc/src/client/h2proto.rs:138 — awc::client::h2proto::send_body has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • awc::client::h1proto::send_body (cognitive 18) awc/src/client/h1proto.rs:188 — awc::client::h1proto::send_body has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×3
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) actix-router/src/de.rs:143 — actix-router/src/de.rs:143-157 | actix-router/src/de.rs:168-182 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) actix-router/src/resource.rs:694 — actix-router/src/resource.rs:694-708 | actix-router/src/resource.rs:718-732 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) actix-web/src/server.rs:640 — actix-web/src/server.rs:640-654 | actix-web/src/server.rs:707-721 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:186 — actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:186-197 | actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:200-211 | actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:245-256 | actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:260-271 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:243 — actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:243-254 | actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:258-269 | actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:273-284 | actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:288-299 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:196 — actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:196-207 | actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:250-261 | actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:304-315 | actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:358-369 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) actix-http/src/builder.rs:219 — actix-http/src/builder.rs:219-230 | actix-http/src/builder.rs:249-260 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:476 — actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:476-487 | actix-http/src/service.rs:827-838 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) actix-http/src/requests/head.rs:95 — actix-http/src/requests/head.rs:95-106 | actix-http/src/responses/head.rs:69-80 — `actix-http/src/requests/head.rs` and `actix-http/src/responses/head.rs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) actix-web/src/app_service.rs:305 — actix-web/src/app_service.rs:305-313 | actix-web/src/scope.rs:498-506 — before extracting anything, compare `actix-web/src/app_service.rs` and `actix-web/src/scope.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) awc/src/responses/json_body.rs:92 — awc/src/responses/json_body.rs:92-100 | awc/src/responses/response_body.rs:89-97 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) actix-http/src/responses/builder.rs:175 — actix-http/src/responses/builder.rs:175-183 | actix-web/src/response/builder.rs:192-200 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×3
  • Low cohesion: H1Service (LCOM4 7) actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:29 — H1Service's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: FilesService (LCOM4 4) actix-files/src/service.rs:25 — FilesService's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: ClientRequest (LCOM4 4) awc/src/request.rs:44 — ClientRequest's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MessageType · ×2
  • MessageType::set_headers (cyclomatic 36) actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:75 — MessageType::set_headers has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
  • MessageType::encode_headers (cyclomatic 28) actix-http/src/h1/encoder.rs:60 — MessageType::encode_headers has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · InnerDispatcher · ×2
  • InnerDispatcher::poll_response (cyclomatic 32) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:598 — InnerDispatcher::poll_response has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
  • InnerDispatcher::poll_request (cyclomatic 19) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:911 — InnerDispatcher::poll_request has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×2
  • FixmeComment awc/src/sender.rs:74 — // FIXME: use a pinned Sleep instead of box. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment actix-multipart/src/test.rs:174 — // FIXME: terrible naming, but this is needed for compat with the current naming. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Inner · ×2
  • Inner::poll (cognitive 73) actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs:390 — Inner::poll has cognitive complexity 73 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (51 pts), match/switch 5 (20 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 46). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
  • Inner::skip_until_boundary (cognitive 25) actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs:345 — Inner::skip_until_boundary has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (22 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MessageType · ×2
  • MessageType::set_headers (cognitive 58) actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:75 — MessageType::set_headers has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (43 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (5 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 27). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • MessageType::encode_headers (cognitive 36) actix-http/src/h1/encoder.rs:60 — MessageType::encode_headers has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (29 pts), match/switch 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Codec · ×2
  • Codec::decode (cognitive 29) actix-http/src/ws/codec.rs:224 — Codec::decode has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (26 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
  • Codec::encode (cognitive 19) actix-http/src/ws/codec.rs:124 — Codec::encode has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ContentDecoder · ×2
  • ContentDecoder::feed_eof (cognitive 25) actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:181 — ContentDecoder::feed_eof has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), match/switch 5 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 12). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ContentDecoder::feed_data) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
  • ContentDecoder::feed_data (cognitive 25) actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:239 — ContentDecoder::feed_data has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), match/switch 5 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 12). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ContentDecoder::feed_eof) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2
  • Change coupling: decoder.rs ↔ encoder.rs actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:1 — `actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs` and `actix-http/src/encoding/encoder.rs` change together 61% of the time (14 of the 23 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 14 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `1424e98b` chore: avoid actix-rt reexports of tokio types; `ad389737` move blocking error to web (#2660); `e7cae5a9` migrate to `brotli` crate (#2538) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: builder.rs ↔ dispatcher.rs actix-http/src/builder.rs:1 — `actix-http/src/builder.rs` and `actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs` change together 50% of the time (9 of the 18 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `0df37ac6` Drain HTTP/1 connections during graceful shutdown (#4169); `cffe5d27` http: add h1 write buffer size setting (#3986); `fde79342` Add option to allow/disallow half closures in HTTP/1 (#3777) — run `git show` on any of them.
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:202 — actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:202-213 | actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:262-273 | actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:322-333 | actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:382-393 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:195 — actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:195-214 | actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:249-268 | actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:303-322 | actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:357-376 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) actix-http/src/body/utils.rs:103 — actix-http/src/body/utils.rs:103-110 | actix-multipart/src/field.rs:149-156 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) actix-web/src/app_service.rs:293 — actix-web/src/app_service.rs:293-300 | actix-web/src/scope.rs:489-496 — before extracting anything, compare `actix-web/src/app_service.rs` and `actix-web/src/scope.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2
  • Off the main sequence: actix-http — actix-http: abstractness 0.11, instability 0.00, distance 0.89 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 5 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: actix-router — actix-router: abstractness 0.14, instability 0.00, distance 0.86 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 2 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest16 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest16::poll (cyclomatic 82) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest16::poll has cyclomatic complexity 82 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest15 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest15::poll (cyclomatic 77) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest15::poll has cyclomatic complexity 77 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest14 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest14::poll (cyclomatic 72) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest14::poll has cyclomatic complexity 72 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest13 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest13::poll (cyclomatic 67) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest13::poll has cyclomatic complexity 67 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest12 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest12::poll (cyclomatic 62) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest12::poll has cyclomatic complexity 62 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest11 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest11::poll (cyclomatic 57) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest11::poll has cyclomatic complexity 57 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest10 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest10::poll (cyclomatic 52) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest10::poll has cyclomatic complexity 52 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest9 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest9::poll (cyclomatic 47) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest9::poll has cyclomatic complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest8 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest8::poll (cyclomatic 42) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest8::poll has cyclomatic complexity 42 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest7 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest7::poll (cyclomatic 37) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest7::poll has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · FilesService · ×1
  • FilesService::call (cyclomatic 32) actix-files/src/service.rs:138 — FilesService::call has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest6 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest6::poll (cyclomatic 32) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest6::poll has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Dispatcher · ×1
  • Dispatcher::poll (cyclomatic 30) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1310 — Dispatcher::poll has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · NamedFile · ×1
  • NamedFile::into_response (cyclomatic 29) actix-files/src/named.rs:447 — NamedFile::into_response has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest5 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest5::poll (cyclomatic 27) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest5::poll has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WebsocketsRequest · ×1
  • WebsocketsRequest::connect (cyclomatic 26) awc/src/ws.rs:264 — WebsocketsRequest::connect has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Inner · ×1
  • Inner::poll (cyclomatic 24) actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs:390 — Inner::poll has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · actix_test · ×1
  • actix_test::start_with (cyclomatic 24) actix-test/src/lib.rs:120 — actix_test::start_with has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · InnerField · ×1
  • InnerField::read_stream (cyclomatic 22) actix-multipart/src/field.rs:288 — InnerField::read_stream has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest4 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest4::poll (cyclomatic 22) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest4::poll has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · QualityItem · ×1
  • QualityItem::from_str (cyclomatic 21) actix-http/src/header/shared/quality_item.rs:95 — QualityItem::from_str has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Format · ×1
  • Format::new (cyclomatic 21) actix-web/src/middleware/logger.rs:502 — Format::new has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Codec · ×1
  • Codec::decode (cyclomatic 19) actix-http/src/ws/codec.rs:224 — Codec::decode has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · actix_web · ×1
  • actix_web::introspection::has_conflicting_methods (cyclomatic 19) actix-web/src/introspection.rs:803 — actix_web::introspection::has_conflicting_methods has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 19 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function items inside it that branch (guard_possible_methods, split_top_level_args, union_methods, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · awc · ×1
  • awc::client::h1proto::send_request (cyclomatic 19) awc/src/client/h1proto.rs:27 — awc::client::h1proto::send_request has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PathBufWrap · ×1
  • PathBufWrap::parse_path (cyclomatic 18) actix-files/src/path_buf.rs:62 — PathBufWrap::parse_path has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · actix_files · ×1
  • actix_files::named::get_content_type_and_disposition (cyclomatic 17) actix-files/src/named.rs:90 — actix_files::named::get_content_type_and_disposition has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SendResponse · ×1
  • SendResponse::poll (cyclomatic 17) actix-http/src/h1/utils.rs:54 — SendResponse::poll has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TupleFromRequest3 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest3::poll (cyclomatic 17) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest3::poll has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: actix-web/src/extract.rs holds 14 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 483 of the 654 points over it (74%), 13.4× the next-largest file (actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs at 36). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Encoder · ×1
  • Encoder::poll_next (cyclomatic 16) actix-http/src/encoding/encoder.rs:178 — Encoder::poll_next has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Request · ×1
  • Request::decode (cyclomatic 16) actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:260 — Request::decode has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · actix_multipart_derive · ×1
  • actix_multipart_derive::impl_multipart_form (cyclomatic 16) actix-multipart-derive/src/lib.rs:58 — actix_multipart_derive::impl_multipart_form has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FilesService · ×1
  • FilesService::call (cognitive 68) actix-files/src/service.rs:138 — FilesService::call has cognitive complexity 68 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (52 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 37). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest16 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest16::poll (cognitive 67) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest16::poll has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 48 (65 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest15 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest15::poll (cognitive 63) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest15::poll has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 45 (61 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest14 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest14::poll (cognitive 59) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest14::poll has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 42 (57 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest13 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest13::poll (cognitive 55) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest13::poll has cognitive complexity 55 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 39 (53 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest12 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest12::poll (cognitive 51) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest12::poll has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 36 (49 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · InnerField · ×1
  • InnerField::read_stream (cognitive 48) actix-multipart/src/field.rs:288 — InnerField::read_stream has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (38 pts), boolean chains 5, match/switch 1 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Encoder · ×1
  • Encoder::poll_next (cognitive 47) actix-http/src/encoding/encoder.rs:178 — Encoder::poll_next has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (42 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 29). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest11 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest11::poll (cognitive 47) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest11::poll has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 33 (45 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · NamedFile · ×1
  • NamedFile::into_response (cognitive 43) actix-files/src/named.rs:447 — NamedFile::into_response has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31 (37 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest10 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest10::poll (cognitive 43) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest10::poll has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 30 (41 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WebsocketsRequest · ×1
  • WebsocketsRequest::connect (cognitive 43) awc/src/ws.rs:264 — WebsocketsRequest::connect has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 29 (37 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SendResponse · ×1
  • SendResponse::poll (cognitive 40) actix-http/src/h1/utils.rs:54 — SendResponse::poll has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (23 pts), match/switch 3 (11 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest9 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest9::poll (cognitive 39) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest9::poll has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 27 (37 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ContentDisposition · ×1
  • ContentDisposition::from_raw (cognitive 37) actix-web/src/http/header/content_disposition.rs:342 — ContentDisposition::from_raw has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (31 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest8 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest8::poll (cognitive 35) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest8::poll has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 24 (33 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Decoder · ×1
  • Decoder::poll_next (cognitive 32) actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:100 — Decoder::poll_next has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (25 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest7 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest7::poll (cognitive 31) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest7::poll has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 21 (29 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · QualityItem · ×1
  • QualityItem::from_str (cognitive 30) actix-http/src/header/shared/quality_item.rs:95 — QualityItem::from_str has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Args · ×1
  • Args::new (cognitive 29) actix-web-codegen/src/route.rs:236 — Args::new has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (28 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PayloadDecoder · ×1
  • PayloadDecoder::decode (cognitive 28) actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:557 — PayloadDecoder::decode has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 15). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RedirectServiceFuture · ×1
  • RedirectServiceFuture::poll (cognitive 28) awc/src/middleware/redirect.rs:144 — RedirectServiceFuture::poll has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (16 pts), if/else 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest6 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest6::poll (cognitive 27) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest6::poll has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 18 (25 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Readlines · ×1
  • Readlines::poll_next (cognitive 27) actix-web/src/types/readlines.rs:94 — Readlines::poll_next has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ResourceDef · ×1
  • ResourceDef::capture_match_info_fn (cognitive 25) actix-router/src/resource.rs:677 — ResourceDef::capture_match_info_fn has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (10 pts), match/switch 5 (9 pts), loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConnectionPool · ×1
  • ConnectionPool::call (cognitive 24) awc/src/client/pool.rs:166 — ConnectionPool::call has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Request · ×1
  • Request::decode (cognitive 23) actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:260 — Request::decode has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PayloadBuffer · ×1
  • PayloadBuffer::poll_stream (cognitive 23) actix-multipart/src/payload.rs:77 — PayloadBuffer::poll_stream has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (18 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest5 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest5::poll (cognitive 23) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest5::poll has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 15 (21 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PathBufWrap · ×1
  • PathBufWrap::parse_path (cognitive 20) actix-files/src/path_buf.rs:62 — PathBufWrap::parse_path has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (15 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Parser · ×1
  • Parser::parse_metadata (cognitive 20) actix-http/src/ws/frame.rs:66 — Parser::parse_metadata has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (18 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TupleFromRequest4 · ×1
  • TupleFromRequest4::poll (cognitive 19) actix-web/src/extract.rs:351 — TupleFromRequest4::poll has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 12 (17 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IntrospectionCollector · ×1
  • IntrospectionCollector::finalize (cognitive 19) actix-web/src/introspection.rs:411 — IntrospectionCollector::finalize has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (16 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · actix_files · ×1
  • actix_files::named::get_content_type_and_disposition (cognitive 18) actix-files/src/named.rs:90 — actix_files::named::get_content_type_and_disposition has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (7 pts), match/switch 4 (7 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Format · ×1
  • Format::new (cognitive 18) actix-web/src/middleware/logger.rs:502 — Format::new has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · actix_multipart_derive · ×1
  • actix_multipart_derive::impl_multipart_form (cognitive 17) actix-multipart-derive/src/lib.rs:58 — actix_multipart_derive::impl_multipart_form has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7, if/else 4 (6 pts), loops 4 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Connector · ×1
  • Connector::finish (cognitive 17) awc/src/client/connector.rs:424 — Connector::finish has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 5). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ByteRangeSpec · ×1
  • ByteRangeSpec::to_satisfiable_range (cognitive 16) actix-web/src/http/header/range.rs:128 — ByteRangeSpec::to_satisfiable_range has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Resource · ×1
  • Resource::register (cognitive 16) actix-web/src/resource.rs:420 — Resource::register has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (10 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyFunctions · ×1
  • TooManyFunctions: actix_web::error::internal actix-web/src/error/internal.rs:132 — TooManyFunctions — 39 free functions. The bar is 30 free functions; this is 9 over it, 1.30× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 28 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 28 shared lines) actix-http/src/service.rs:442 — actix-http/src/service.rs:442-480 | actix-http/src/service.rs:545-583 | actix-http/src/service.rs:648-686 | actix-http/src/service.rs:751-789 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 28 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (35 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member pair (35 shared lines) actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:181 — actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:181-237 | actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:239-301 — These two members are variants of one another: 35 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) actix-web/src/server.rs:639 — actix-web/src/server.rs:639-702 | actix-web/src/server.rs:706-769 | actix-web/src/server.rs:808-874 | actix-web/src/server.rs:881-947 | actix-web/src/server.rs:970-1036 | actix-web/src/server.rs:1059-1125 | actix-web/src/server.rs:1147-1217 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (39 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (39 lines × 2) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:497 — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:497-535 | actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:547-585 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (37 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (37 lines × 2) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:687 — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:687-723 | actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:745-781 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 5) awc/src/client/connector.rs:516 — awc/src/client/connector.rs:516-535 | awc/src/client/connector.rs:556-575 | awc/src/client/connector.rs:591-610 | awc/src/client/connector.rs:629-648 | awc/src/client/connector.rs:664-683 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) actix-http/src/service.rs:443 — actix-http/src/service.rs:443-462 | actix-http/src/service.rs:546-565 | actix-http/src/service.rs:649-668 | actix-http/src/service.rs:752-771 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) actix-files/src/named.rs:449 — actix-files/src/named.rs:449-468 | actix-files/src/named.rs:528-547 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) actix-web/src/app_service.rs:340 — actix-web/src/app_service.rs:340-357 | actix-web/src/scope.rs:532-549 — before extracting anything, compare `actix-web/src/app_service.rs` and `actix-web/src/scope.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) actix-http-test/src/lib.rs:83 — actix-http-test/src/lib.rs:83-97 | actix-test/src/lib.rs:423-438 — before extracting anything, compare `actix-http-test/src/lib.rs` and `actix-test/src/lib.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) actix-web/src/resource.rs:502 — actix-web/src/resource.rs:502-513 | actix-web/src/scope.rs:439-453 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–14 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10–14 lines × 2) actix-web/src/request.rs:634 — actix-web/src/request.rs:634-647 | actix-web/src/service.rs:400-409 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 5) actix-web/src/server.rs:811 — actix-web/src/server.rs:811-822 | actix-web/src/server.rs:884-895 | actix-web/src/server.rs:973-984 | actix-web/src/server.rs:1062-1073 | actix-web/src/server.rs:1150-1162 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) actix-http/src/builder.rs:290 — actix-http/src/builder.rs:290-302 | actix-http/src/builder.rs:321-333 | actix-http/src/builder.rs:349-361 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:203 — actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:203-213 | actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:263-273 | actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:323-333 | actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:383-393 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:199 — actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:199-209 | actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:213-222 | actix-http/src/encoding/decoder.rs:225-235 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:621 — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:621-630 | actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:836-844 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 7) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 7) actix-web/src/server.rs:647 — actix-web/src/server.rs:647-655 | actix-web/src/server.rs:714-722 | actix-web/src/server.rs:815-823 | actix-web/src/server.rs:888-896 | actix-web/src/server.rs:977-985 | actix-web/src/server.rs:1066-1074 | actix-web/src/server.rs:1155-1163 — all 7 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) actix-http/src/service.rs:473 — actix-http/src/service.rs:473-480 | actix-http/src/service.rs:576-583 | actix-http/src/service.rs:679-686 | actix-http/src/service.rs:782-789 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:208 — actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:208-214 | actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:262-268 | actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:316-322 | actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:370-376 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 8) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 8) actix-multipart/src/form/json.rs:106 — actix-multipart/src/form/json.rs:106-110 | actix-multipart/src/form/mod.rs:555-559 | actix-multipart/src/form/tempfile.rs:124-128 | actix-multipart/src/form/text.rs:117-121 | actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs:70-74 | actix-web/src/types/form.rs:248-252 | actix-web/src/types/json.rs:272-276 | actix-web/src/types/payload.rs:327-331 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 8 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 8 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:410 — actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:410-419 | actix-http/src/h1/service.rs:426-435 | actix-http/src/service.rs:149-158 | actix-http/src/service.rs:169-178 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:982 — actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:982-991 | actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:997-1006 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
M1 · Documentation (README) · README may be stale · ×1
  • README may be stale — 103 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · Weak hash algorithm · ×1
  • Weak hash algorithm actix-http/src/ws/proto.rs:238 — MD5/SHA1 is computed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ (`sha2::Sha256::digest(…)`) for content integrity, or a KDF (bcrypt/Argon2/scrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, an avatar URL, an ETag), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as xxhash or murmurhash says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. Where a protocol this code does not own fixes the digest (a k-anonymity range query, a legacy signature format), the protocol decides; say so beside the call.
Minor — 66 finding(s)
X4 · Structured logging · Interpolated log message defeats structured logging · ×40
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-router/src/resource.rs:702 — `error!` at line 702 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-router/src/resource.rs:726 — `error!` at line 726 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/service.rs:833 — `error!` at line 833 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/service.rs:839 — `error!` at line 839 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/service.rs:847 — `error!` at line 847 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/service.rs:952 — `error!` at line 952 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/service.rs:1125 — `trace!` at line 1125 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/ws/codec.rs:264 — `error!` at line 264 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/ws/dispatcher.rs:377 — `debug!` at line 377 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/ws/dispatcher.rs:427 — `debug!` at line 427 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h2/dispatcher.rs:149 — `trace!` at line 149 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h2/dispatcher.rs:152 — `warn!` at line 152 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `warn!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h2/dispatcher.rs:155 — `error!` at line 155 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:460 — `error!` at line 460 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h2/service.rs:543 — `trace!` at line 543 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h1/chunked.rs:156 — `trace!` at line 156 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:109 — `debug!` at line 109 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:119 — `debug!` at line 119 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:125 — `debug!` at line 125 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:155 — `debug!` at line 155 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `debug!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h1/decoder.rs:575 — `trace!` at line 575 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1320 — `error!` at line 1320 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1325 — `trace!` at line 1325 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1466 — `error!` at line 1466 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `error!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging actix-http/src/h1/dispatcher.rs:1499 — `trace!` at line 1499 is handed a format string with `{…}` values in it, so tracing records one finished `message` field — the values in it cannot be queried, filtered or aggregated as fields, and every occurrence reads as a different message. Record the values as fields beside a constant message instead: `trace!(order_id = %order_id, status = ?status, "order status updated")` (`%` records a value by its `Display`, `?` by its `Debug`, a bare name as itself), which a JSON subscriber, OpenTelemetry or a log store keeps as queryable keys. An error goes in as a field too: `error = %err`.
  • + 15 more in this group — see findings.md.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×7
  • Orphaned file actix-files/src/range.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file actix-web-actors/src/context.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file actix-multipart/src/form/tempfile.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file awc/src/connect.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file actix-web-codegen/src/scope.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file awc/src/test.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file actix-web/src/types/header.rs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×3
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 16 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: actix-router/src/resource.rs, actix-http/src/header/map.rs, actix-web/src/http/header/content_disposition.rs, awc/src/client/connection.rs, actix-router/src/router.rs, awc/src/sender.rs, actix-web/src/types/readlines.rs, actix-http/src/header/shared/quality.rs (+8 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 4 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: actix-multipart/src/multipart.rs, actix-web/src/response/builder.rs, actix-web/src/http/header/content_length.rs, actix-files/src/directory.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #3 — If anonymized user #3 becomes unavailable, 3 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: actix-http/src/responses/head.rs, actix-http/src/http_message.rs, actix-multipart/src/form/text.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×3
  • Duplicated predicate actix-web/src/resource.rs:429 — `config.is_root() || !self.rdef.is_empty()` appears character-identically in 2 files — actix-web/src/resource.rs, actix-web/src/service.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate actix-multipart/src/form/json.rs:38 — `mime.subtype() == mime::JSON || mime.suffix() == Some(mime::JSON)` appears character-identically in 2 files — actix-multipart/src/form/json.rs, awc/src/responses/json_body.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate actix-web-actors/src/context.rs:117 — `self.inner.waiting() || self.inner.state() == ActorState::Stopping || self.inner.state() == ActorState::Stopped` appears character-identically in 2 files — actix-web-actors/src/context.rs, actix-web-actors/src/ws.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
C2 · Access Controls · No named authorization policies · ×1
  • No named authorization policies — Authorization IS enforced here (by route guards, auth middleware or checks that refuse a caller) — this is NOT a claim that endpoints are unprotected. What's missing is a NAMED rule set: who may do what is encoded inline where it is checked, so the rules can't be listed, reviewed or tested apart from the code that applies them. Recommendation, not a defect.
C2 · Access Controls · Thin authorization enforcement · ×1
  • Thin authorization enforcement — Only 2 place(s) refuse an unauthorized caller — too few to demonstrate default-deny across handlers.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
  • Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 9 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 7.8/10. The most over is `actix-web` (25745 LoC, 184 module-visible types across 7 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
  • Further orphaned files (smaller) — 7 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than raised one row each — most significant first: actix-files/src/range.rs, actix-web-actors/src/context.rs, actix-multipart/src/form/tempfile.rs, awc/src/connect.rs, actix-web-codegen/src/scope.rs, awc/src/test.rs, actix-web/src/types/header.rs (9 orphaned of 172 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated, example/demo and scaffolding-template trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 172 of the 220 production source files in this repository met that bar). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1
  • Logging is not universal — Only 8/10 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `actix-web-actors`, `actix-web-codegen`.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · Security headers incomplete · ×1
  • Security headers incomplete — Set: Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy, Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy, Cross-Origin-Resource-Policy, Permissions-Policy. Missing: Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options — the four headers that carry the points of this card's security-headers term (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options), 0.5 each.(−2.0 on this card.) The server: `HttpServiceBuilder::default(` (actix-http/src/service.rs:90).
S1 · Web-Security Posture · Secure cookie flags not detected · ×1
  • Secure cookie flags not detected — This repository's Rust server sets cookies (actix-web/src/response/builder.rs:259 — `Set-Cookie` header) and no `secure`, `http_only` or `same_site` flag is switched on anywhere, nor are its cookies Rocket's or a session middleware's, which carry flags by default. (−1.5 on this card.)
Minor — 3 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×3
  • Outdated: brotli — `brotli` is locked at 9.0.0 but 9.1.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"9"` requirement declared in actix-http/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p brotli` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: smallvec — `smallvec` is locked at 1.16.3 but 1.16.4 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.6.1"` requirement declared in actix-http/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p smallvec` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: tokio — `tokio` is locked at 1.53.3 but 1.54.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.38.2"` requirement declared in actix-http-test/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tokio` and commit the updated REDACTED.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-4ac2dc4c84994930b66e38cff325e5e5/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .3artifacts/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-4ac2dc4c84994930b66e38cff325e5e5/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .1artifacts/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 --exclude *.arrow --exclude *.avro --exclude *.csv --exclude *.dat --exclude *.db --exclude *.feather --exclude *.geojson --exclude *.h5 --exclude *.hdf5 --exclude *.jsonl --exclude *.log --exclude *.ndjson --exclude *.npy --exclude *.npz --exclude *.orc --exclude *.parquet --exclude *.pickle --exclude *.pkl --exclude *.psv --exclude *.sqlite --exclude *.sqlite3 --exclude *.tfrecord --exclude *.tsv --exclude *.txt .45artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .10artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.0—
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 Policydisclosure—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 Confinementruntime-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 Confinementruntime-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 Enforcementruntime-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 Dependenciesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .0artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a17635-a67e-7517-a6ce-183bd5f9bf81 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 51 · Warnings: 251 · Recommendations: 66 · Info: 3 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 26-10-2026 @ 03:16 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md