Public report — swift-async-algorithms, published 30 Sep 2026.
Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches,
dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase surveyMeasured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.18 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_1cd45d3b67104caa8fbf2aff0bbf60ea
Filed 30 September 2026, 21:27 UTC
Public
Small · 16,869 LoC · 4 projects · rebuild ~0.2 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (55%)
Findings by grade
2 critical252 serious11 minor44 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
30 September 2026, 21:24 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify,
approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The
standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said
here so the number is checked rather than believed.
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
252findings with an exact file:lineof 265 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
39/119dimensions across the health lenses16869 LoC · 4 projects — wide & deep
The system holds a strong overall standing of 70%, reflecting a well-engineered foundation with high code quality and architectural integrity. However, this robustness is undermined by significant gaps in operational readiness, creating a scenario where a small, easily replaceable asset carries disproportionate risk due to insufficient production safeguards. The value tied up in this system is modest, requiring only about 0.2 person-years to rebuild at an estimated cost of €36,000. This low rebuild cost means the business is not locked in, but it also highlights that the primary exposure lies not in the code’s complexity, but in its ability to operate safely and reliably in production.
The most critical theme is operational fragility. While the code itself is healthy, the system’s readiness score of 55% indicates that it lacks the necessary testing depth and observability to guarantee stability under real-world conditions. This gap increases the likelihood of undetected defects and outages, directly threatening delivery speed and reliability. Without adequate safeguards, even minor changes can introduce regressions that are difficult to trace, leading to higher support costs and potential customer impact. The absence of measured test coverage further obscures the true state of quality, making it difficult to assess the risk of new features.
A second theme is governance drift. The system suffers from incomplete documentation and a lack of structured decision records, which hinders long-term maintainability and team onboarding. Although the architecture is sound, the lack of a changelog and limited architectural decision records means that institutional knowledge is not preserved. This creates a dependency on specific individuals and increases the cognitive load for new engineers, slowing down future development cycles and increasing the risk of repeated mistakes.
What is genuinely good is the high quality of the code and architecture, with scores of 89% and 92% respectively, indicating a clean, maintainable, and well-designed system. Security and performance are also strong, with no immediate threats identified. To focus first, the team should implement a changelog to track releases, as this provides the highest leverage for improving transparency and governance with minimal effort. This step should precede other improvements, as it establishes a baseline for accountability and communication, enabling more effective prioritization of subsequent technical debt remediation.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
D22 · Inconsistent naming for equivalent operations across related types. `AsyncReader` uses `pipe` and `pipe(copyingInto)`, while `CallerAsyncReader` uses `pipe` and `pipe(bufferingInto)`. The semantic difference between 'copying' and 'buffering' is not immediately obvious from the names alone, and the verb 'pipe' is used for both, but the secondary action names differ (`copyingInto` vs `bufferingInto`).
D22 · Inconsistent naming for adapter conversion methods. `AsyncWriter` converts to a caller-side writer via `asCallerAsyncWriter()`, while `CallerAsyncWriter` converts to an async writer via `asAsyncWriter()`. The directionality is clear, but the naming pattern is not symmetrical or parallel. `asCallerAsyncWriter` implies 'become a caller async writer', whereas `asAsyncWriter` implies 'become an async writer'. A more consistent pattern might be `toCallerAsyncWriter` and `toAsyncWriter`, or ensuring the suffix matches the target type exactly.
D22 · Inconsistent naming strategy for buffer policies. `bounded` is a general term, while `bufferingLatest` and `bufferingOldest` are specific strategies. It is unclear if `bounded` implies a specific strategy (e.g., oldest) or is a generic factory. If `bounded` is a specific strategy, it should be named like the others (e.g., `bufferingBounded` or `bufferingOldest` if that's what it does). If it is a generic factory, the other two should perhaps be `bufferingLatest` and `bufferingOldest` under a `bounded` umbrella, or all should be specific strategies.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
1.0× (at 70% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€36,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 55% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 1.0× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with DebounceStateMachine.swift, CombineLatestStateMachine.swift, MergeStateMachine.swift.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 55%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
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 category
Findings
Severity
A03:2021 — Injection
2
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by establishing release hygiene through a maintained changelog and addressing test quality by resolving the 115 assertions gaps, prioritizing the identified test files. Simultaneously, improve architecture documentation by expanding the ADR log to 50 entries and adding a high-level 'How it works' section to the README. Finally, ensure knowledge freshness by removing the three most significant orphaned files to keep the codebase current.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with DebounceStateMachine.swift, CombineLatestStateMachine.swift, MergeStateMachine.swift.
Test Quality: No assertions: test_merge_makes_sequence_with_ordered_elements_when_sources_follow_a_timeline
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 — 2
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 — 252
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 — 11
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 44
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. 32 of 39 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 7 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
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 — 39 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 252 of 265 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 2 SwiftPM declaration(s) across 1 `Package.swift` and 0 committed pin(s) were read for PINNING discipline (0 defect(s) reported), but the outdated signal comes from listing each declared repository's release tags rather than from a registry, and none of them resolved to a version to compare, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncChain2Sequence.swift`, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncChain3Sequence.swift`, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncChunkedByGroupSequence.swift`, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncChunkedOnProjectionSequence.swift`, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncChunksOfCountOrSignalSequence.swift`, … (+27 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and no container it models, or knows cannot hold a captive, was found in this repository's source, 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.
AX2 Stateful singletons — 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 Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection singletons in C#, Spring/JSR-330/CDI singletons in Java and Kotlin, and module state in Python request handlers only, and this repository's product is written in Swift, which was left unread, 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.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
P8 Schema migrations — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads EF Core usage in C# and the schema tooling its file scan recognises only, and no .NET project was loaded, and this repository's language is not one the scan models, 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.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Those languages colour their functions async, so blocking inside them is the same defect this card counts elsewhere, but their blocking vocabulary is not modelled yet. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the code is free of it.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/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.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, Java/Kotlin/Scala, Ruby, PHP and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and none of those languages was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust and Go syntax only, and no C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust or Go was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
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.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
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 is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D25 ADR Conformance: ADR conformance is the LLM-scored fraction of sampled code that follows recorded decisions — it checks the decisions that were written down and the slices it sampled, not unrecorded rules or the whole tree.
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").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (7): D19, D20, D21, D22, D25, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
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.
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 CombineLatestStorage.startTask (cyclomatic 37) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with CombineLatestStorage.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ZipStorage.startTask (cyclomatic 33) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ZipStorage.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CombineLatestStateMachine.upstreamFinished (cyclomatic 28) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with CombineLatestStateMachine.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 7 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 CombineLatestStorage.startTask (cognitive 48) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with CombineLatestStorage.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ZipStorage.startTask (cognitive 48) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ZipStorage.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.read (cognitive 34) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 3 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with CombineLatestStorage.swift, ZipStorage.swift, DebounceStorage.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel+Internal.swift (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with AsyncAdjacentPairsSequence.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
43 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 4 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
+ 26 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Locking.swift (2), DebounceStateMachine.swift, CombineLatestStateMachine.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Locking.swift (3), AsyncCombineLatest2Sequence.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CombineLatestStateMachine.swift (2), ZipStateMachine.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling8.0 / 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.
4 production modules (SwiftPM), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 3 of the 4 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or have no source directory of their own).
Off the main sequence: AsyncAlgorithms
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with AsyncBufferedByteIterator.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.
What it measures: Whether the code respects its intended layering / architecture rules.
Method: Enforcement rung (Prevented/Verified/Documented) per checkable ADR via Roslyn, plus dependency cycles via the engine shared with D5/AX3. Deterministic, exact.
All 19 mechanizable ADR(s) are enforced: 14 by analyzers, 5 by tests. Dependency cycles not checked (no project-reference graph; where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there).
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d7_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
449 test methods: 449 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
Resolve the 115 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with TestValidationTests.swift (31), TestChunk.swift (23), TestThroughput.swift (17). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (115 warning-level).
Resolve the 38 Skipped test finding(s) in Test Quality — start with TestThrottle.swift (16), TestChunk.swift (10), TestDebounce.swift (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (38 warning-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.
Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: 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.
0 of 1 SwiftPM package(s) use a banned license. SwiftPM has no package registry, so each package's licence is the one its repository declares: 0 of them read from the licence file the repository carries at the revision Package.resolved pins, and 1 — unpinned, or whose licence file could not be read or named — from api.deps.dev, which reports the licence the repository declares today. Graded: every package a committed Package.resolved pins, direct and transitive, and every declared dependency none pins. 1 of them are declared by a manifest that commits no Package.resolved (a library, whose resolution is its consumer's), so their own dependencies are resolved by whoever builds it and are not in this verdict.
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.
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.
5 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel+Internal.swift. Counted over 73 of the 87 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
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
21 deducted task-comment markers across 16869 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. 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.
Resolve the 21 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift (4), AsyncReader.swift (3), AsyncWriter.swift (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README is clear and well-structured: it states what the package is (Swift Async Algorithms), its three main goals, motivation, a full Contents outline, and links to GitHub and forums. It is an open-source project README with no sibling documentation, so the visible content reflects only the README itself rather than any architecture or design docs.
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README is clear and well-structured: it states what the package is (Swift Async Algorithms), its three main goals, motivation, a full Contents outline, and links to GitHub and forums. It is an open-source project README with no sibling documentation, so the visible content reflects only the README itself rather than any architecture or design docs.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
Evaluated 19 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 8.3/10 (consistently complete and clear). 0 flagged with a specific gap.
What to do
Improve ADR Quality — currently 8.3/10. — Evaluated 19 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 8.3/10 (consistently complete and clear). 0 flagged with a specific gap.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API ConsistencyAdequate◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.
Inconsistent naming for equivalent operations across related types. `AsyncReader` uses `pipe` and `pipe(copyingInto)`, while `CallerAsyncReader` uses `pipe` and `pipe(bufferingInto)`. The semantic difference between 'copying' and 'buffering' is not immediately obvious from the names alone, and the verb 'pipe' is used for both, but the secondary action names differ (`copyingInto` vs `bufferingInto`).
Inconsistent naming for adapter conversion methods. `AsyncWriter` converts to a caller-side writer via `asCallerAsyncWriter()`, while `CallerAsyncWriter` converts to an async writer via `asAsyncWriter()`. The directionality is clear, but the naming pattern is not symmetrical or parallel. `asCallerAsyncWriter` implies 'become a caller async writer', whereas `asAsyncWriter` implies 'become an async writer'. A more consistent pattern might be `toCallerAsyncWriter` and `toAsyncWriter`, or ensuring the suffix matches the target type exactly.
Inconsistent naming strategy for buffer policies. `bounded` is a general term, while `bufferingLatest` and `bufferingOldest` are specific strategies. It is unclear if `bounded` implies a specific strategy (e.g., oldest) or is a generic factory. If `bounded` is a specific strategy, it should be named like the others (e.g., `bufferingBounded` or `bufferingOldest` if that's what it does). If it is a generic factory, the other two should perhaps be `bufferingLatest` and `bufferingOldest` under a `bounded` umbrella, or all should be specific strategies.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for equivalent operations across related types.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for adapter conversion methods. `AsyncWriter`… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming strategy for buffer policies. `bounded` is a general… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the code actually follows the decisions recorded in the project's ADRs.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature against ADRs plus a deterministic structural code summary; findings linked to repo-rooted ADR paths for traceability. Advisory.
1 of 1 build units (SwiftPM) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 2 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `Sources/_CAsyncSequenceValidationSupport/_CAsyncSequenceValidationSupport.h` (line 246, line 248, line 249) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
REDACTED
What to do
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 2 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 (2 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether 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.
48 of 73 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Debounce/DebounceStateMachine.swift. Counted over 73 of the 87 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Most significant orphaned file · ×3Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Debounce/DebounceStateMachine.swift
Concentrated knowledge decay
What to do
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with DebounceStateMachine.swift, CombineLatestStateMachine.swift, MergeStateMachine.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Concentrated knowledge decay finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
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.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Grow the ADR log (currently 20) — reach 50 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 863 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
What to do
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 152 use(s) across 19,126 production line(s) (~7.9/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Swift: on hot paths, reserveCapacity before appending, use ContiguousArray for class-element arrays, work in place with withUnsafeBufferPointer/withUnsafeTemporaryAllocation, and make large values ~Copyable with borrowing/consuming parameters.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 75 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 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
AX2 Stateful singletons — 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
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
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 — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 2 SwiftPM declaration(s) across 1 `Package.swift` and 0 committed pin(s) were read for PINNING discipline (0 defect(s) reported), but the outdated signal comes from listing each declared repository's release tags rather than from a registry, and none of them resolved to a version to compare, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
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.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved — not scanned yet).
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) — 32 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved — not scanned yet).
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in . produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P2 Observability — This repository's Swift source (1 module(s), 87 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Swift source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — 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
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — coverage data present for 69 file(s), but no domain-layer files were identified: no covered file's path contains any of the markers this check keys on (/domain/, /aggregates/, /valueobjects/, /domainmodel/, .domain/, /entities/), which are matched case-insensitively anywhere in the path. With no domain partition there is nothing to compare the web/controller layer against — if this repository keeps its business rules under a folder named none of those, that naming is what the check cannot see, not the domain logic.
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `Benchmark("…")` in a file importing package-benchmark, or package-benchmark in Package.swift, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Sync-over-async was not assessed: this repository's async code is written in Swift, whose blocking calls this check does not model yet. That is a gap in the analyzer's language reach, not a finding about your code.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — 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
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check 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.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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.
No assertions: test_adjacentPairs_finishes_when_iteration_task_is_cancelled Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestAdjacentPairs.swift:73— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_base_sequence_when_bufferingOldest_then_the_policy_is_applied Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:112— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_base_sequence_when_bufferingOldest_with_0_limit_then_the_policy_is_transparent Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:120— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_base_sequence_when_bufferingOldest_at_slow_pace_then_no_element_is_dropped Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:128— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_failable_base_sequence_when_bufferingOldest_then_the_failure_is_forwarded Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:136— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_base_sequence_when_bufferingNewest_then_the_policy_is_applied Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:144— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_base_sequence_when_bufferingNewest_with_limit_0_then_the_policy_is_transparent Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:152— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_base_sequence_when_bufferingNewest_at_slow_pace_then_no_element_is_dropped Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:160— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_failable_base_sequence_when_bufferingNewest_then_the_failure_is_forwarded Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:168— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_buffered_with_unbounded_sequence_when_cancelling_consumer_then_the_iteration_finishes_and_the_base_is_cancelled Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:177— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_buffered_bounded_sequence_when_cancelling_consumer_then_the_iteration_finishes_and_the_base_is_cancelled Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:300— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_given_a_base_sequence_when_bounded_with_limit_0_then_the_policy_is_transparent Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestBuffer.swift:331— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_chain2_finishes_when_task_is_cancelled Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChain.swift:71— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_chain3_finishes_when_task_is_cancelled Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChain.swift:176— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_count_one Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:30— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_signal_equalChunks Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:38— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_signal_unequalChunks Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:47— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_signal_emptyChunks Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:56— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_signal_error Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:65— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_signal_unsignaledTrailingChunk Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:74— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_signalAndCount_signalAlwaysPrevails Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:83— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_signalAndCount_countAlwaysPrevails Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:92— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_signalAndCount_countResetsAfterCount Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:101— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_signalAndCount_countResetsAfterSignal Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:110— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: test_signalAndCount_error Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestChunk.swift:119— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
TodoComment Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift:642— // TODO: remove when this is resolved — 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 Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Merge/MergeStateMachine.swift:624— // TODO: don't alloc new array here — 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 Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel+Internal.swift:1777— // TODO: This type is unchecked Sendable since the closure is actually sending — 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 Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel+Internal.swift:1784— // TODO: This should be replaced with Disconnected once we have a UniqueDeque — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncReader/AsyncReader.swift:39— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable elements — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncWriter/AsyncWriter.swift:35— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable elements — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/CallerAsyncReader/CallerAsyncReader.swift:38— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable elements — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/CallerAsyncWriter/CallerAsyncWriter.swift:41— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable elements — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncReader/AsyncReader.swift:43— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable buffer — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncWriter/AsyncWriter.swift:39— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable buffer — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/CallerAsyncReader/CallerAsyncReader.swift:64— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable buffer — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncReader/AsyncReader.swift:53— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable final elements — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncReader/AsyncReader+pipe.swift:16— // TODO: The `Writer` generic parameter on every `pipe` variant in this file — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/CallerAsyncReader/CallerAsyncReader+pipe.swift:17— // TODO: The `Writer` generic parameter on every `pipe` variant in this file — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncWriter/AsyncWriter.swift:49— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable final element — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/CallerAsyncReader/CallerAsyncReader.swift:48— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable final element — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/CallerAsyncWriter/CallerAsyncWriter.swift:50— // TODO: Check if we should support ~Escapable final element — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift:338— // TODO: This should not be necessary — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift:342— // TODO: This should not be necessary — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift:362— // TODO: This should not be necessary — 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 Sources/AsyncStreaming/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift:366— // TODO: This should not be necessary — 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.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:57— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:57-73 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift:57-73 — `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift` and `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift` 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 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 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 (17 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:83— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:83-99 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift:83-99 — `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift` and `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift` 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 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 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 (17 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Debounce/DebounceStateMachine.swift:301— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Debounce/DebounceStateMachine.swift:301-317 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Debounce/DebounceStateMachine.swift:381-397 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Debounce/DebounceStateMachine.swift:301` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:89— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:89-105 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift:75-91 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 66 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 (7 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:75— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:75-81 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift:75-81 — `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift` and `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift` 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 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 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) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:147— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:147-153 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift:147-153 — `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift` and `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift` 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 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:177— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:177-183 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift:177-183 — `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift` and `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift` 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 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/AsyncCombineLatest2Sequence.swift:76— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/AsyncCombineLatest2Sequence.swift:76-82 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/AsyncZip2Sequence.swift:54-60 — 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `storage` to `CombineLatestStorage<Base1, Base2, Base2>` in one and `ZipStorage<Base1, Base2, Base2>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
MethodTooLong: CombineLatestStorage.startTask Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:129— MethodTooLong — startTask runs 152 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 52 over it, 1.52× 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: ZipStorage.startTask Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:119— MethodTooLong — startTask runs 134 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 34 over it, 1.34× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: DebounceStorage.startTask Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Debounce/DebounceStorage.swift:136— MethodTooLong — startTask runs 112 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 12 over it, 1.12× 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.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:315— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:315-328 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift:304-317 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 66 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:315` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift:303` calls `precondition` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:314` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:331— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:331-344 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift:323-336 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 66 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:331` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift:386— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift:386-399 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift:430-443 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift:386` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:118— Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:118-127 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:134-143 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:118` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:145` calls `buildPartialBlock` and `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:129` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/WorkQueue.swift:227— Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/WorkQueue.swift:227-236 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/WorkQueue.swift:256-265 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/WorkQueue.swift:227` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncStreaming/DuplexChannel/DuplexAsyncChannel.swift:92— Sources/AsyncStreaming/DuplexChannel/DuplexAsyncChannel.swift:92-101 | Sources/AsyncStreaming/DuplexChannel/DuplexAsyncChannel.swift:144-153 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncStreaming/DuplexChannel/DuplexAsyncChannel.swift:92` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:230— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:230-234 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:269-273 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:230` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncExclusiveReductionsSequence.swift:128— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncExclusiveReductionsSequence.swift:128-132 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncThrowingExclusiveReductionsSequence.swift:139-143 — 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) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncInclusiveReductionsSequence.swift:97— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncInclusiveReductionsSequence.swift:97-101 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncThrowingInclusiveReductionsSequence.swift:101-105 — 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.
FileTooLong: MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel+Internal.swift Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel+Internal.swift— FileTooLong — 1067 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 567 over it, 2.13× 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: MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel+Internal.swift Sources/AsyncStreaming/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel+Internal.swift— FileTooLong — 733 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 233 over it, 1.47× 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.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:101— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:101-118 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift:101-118 — `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift` and `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift` 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 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 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 (18 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:235— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:235-252 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:274-291 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:235` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:48— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:48-61 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStorage.swift:45-57 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStorage.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:48` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:197— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:197-209 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:409-422 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:197` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:105— Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:105-113 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:119-127 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:135-143 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:105` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:128` calls `buildPartialBlock` and `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:114` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:504— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:504-512 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:516-524 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:526-537 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:526` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStateMachine.swift:171— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStateMachine.swift:171-176 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStateMachine.swift:209-214 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStateMachine.swift:171` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:170— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift:170-175 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift:170-175 — `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Locking.swift` and `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/Locking.swift` 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 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 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.
CombineLatestStorage.startTask (cyclomatic 37) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:129— CombineLatestStorage.startTask 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.
ZipStorage.startTask (cyclomatic 33) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:119— ZipStorage.startTask has cyclomatic complexity 33 (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.
CombineLatestStateMachine.upstreamFinished (cyclomatic 28) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:408— CombineLatestStateMachine.upstreamFinished 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.
DebounceStorage.startTask (cyclomatic 24) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Debounce/DebounceStorage.swift:136— DebounceStorage.startTask 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.
CombineLatestStateMachine.elementProduced (cyclomatic 19) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:260— CombineLatestStateMachine.elementProduced 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.
MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.read (cyclomatic 19) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift:326— MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.read has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
CombineLatestStorage.startTask (cognitive 48) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:129— CombineLatestStorage.startTask has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 10 (30 pts), if/else 7 (11 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 26). 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.
ZipStorage.startTask (cognitive 48) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:119— ZipStorage.startTask has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 10 (30 pts), if/else 7 (11 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 26). 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.
MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.read (cognitive 34) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift:326— MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.read has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: error handling 5 (15 pts), loops 4 (10 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), if/else 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 22). 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.
CombineLatestStateMachine.upstreamFinished (cognitive 32) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:408— CombineLatestStateMachine.upstreamFinished has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), boolean chains 8, match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 8). 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.
State.drain (cognitive 31) Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/WorkQueue.swift:109— State.drain has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (21 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 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.
DebounceStorage.startTask (cognitive 27) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Debounce/DebounceStorage.swift:136— DebounceStorage.startTask has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (17 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts), if/else 2 (3 pts), loops 3 (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.
BoundedBufferStorage.startTask (cognitive 20) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:72— BoundedBufferStorage.startTask has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (11 pts), if/else 2 (6 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), error handling 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.
Iteration.unregisterSide (cognitive 19) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift:386— Iteration.unregisterSide has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), ternaries 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). 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.
Iteration.iterate (cognitive 19) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift:425— Iteration.iterate has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). 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.
Iteration.emit (cognitive 19) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift:489— Iteration.emit has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), loops 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). 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.
ZipStateMachine.childTaskSuspended (cognitive 16) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift:172— ZipStateMachine.childTaskSuspended has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 8). 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.
AsyncWriterCallerAsyncWriterAdapter.write (cognitive 16) Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncWriter/AsyncWriterCallerAsyncWriterAdapter.swift:43— AsyncWriterCallerAsyncWriterAdapter.write has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 2 (7 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (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.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Inconsistent naming for equivalent operations across related types. `AsyncReader` uses `pipe` and `pipe(copyingInto)`, while `CallerAsyncReader` uses `pipe` and `pipe(bufferingInto)`. The semantic difference between 'copying' and 'buffering' is not immediately obvious from the names alone, and the verb 'pipe' is used for both, but the secondary action names differ (`copyingInto` vs `bufferingInto`). · ×1
Inconsistent naming for equivalent operations across related types. `AsyncReader` uses `pipe` and `pipe(copyingInto)`, while `CallerAsyncReader` uses `pipe` and `pipe(bufferingInto)`. The semantic difference between 'copying' and 'buffering' is not immediately obvious from the names alone, and the verb 'pipe' is used for both, but the secondary action names differ (`copyingInto` vs `bufferingInto`). — Unify the naming convention for the secondary pipe operation. If 'buffering' is the technical implementation, use `pipe(bufferingInto:)` consistently across both `AsyncReader` and `CallerAsyncReader`. If 'copying' is the semantic intent, use `pipe(copyingInto:)` consistently. (signatures: AsyncReader.pipe(into: consuming Writer) | AsyncReader.pipe(copyingInto: consuming Writer) | CallerAsyncReader.pipe(into: consuming Writer) | CallerAsyncReader.pipe(bufferingInto: consuming Writer, intermediateCapacity: Int))
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Inconsistent naming for adapter conversion methods. `AsyncWriter` converts to a caller-side writer via `asCallerAsyncWriter()`, while `CallerAsyncWriter` converts to an async writer via `asAsyncWriter()`. The directionality is clear, but the naming pattern is not symmetrical or parallel. `asCallerAsyncWriter` implies 'become a caller async writer', whereas `asAsyncWriter` implies 'become an async writer'. A more consistent pattern might be `toCallerAsyncWriter` and `toAsyncWriter`, or ensuring the suffix matches the target type exactly. · ×1
Inconsistent naming for adapter conversion methods. `AsyncWriter` converts to a caller-side writer via `asCallerAsyncWriter()`, while `CallerAsyncWriter` converts to an async writer via `asAsyncWriter()`. The directionality is clear, but the naming pattern is not symmetrical or parallel. `asCallerAsyncWriter` implies 'become a caller async writer', whereas `asAsyncWriter` implies 'become an async writer'. A more consistent pattern might be `toCallerAsyncWriter` and `toAsyncWriter`, or ensuring the suffix matches the target type exactly. — Simplify adapter type names to be more symmetric, e.g., `CallerAsyncWriterAdapter` and `AsyncWriterAdapter`, or ensure the conversion methods explicitly state the directionality if the names are ambiguous. Given the verbosity, the current names are at least descriptive, but the lack of a `AsyncWriter.asAsyncWriter` (since it is one) and `CallerAsyncWriter.asCallerAsyncWriter` (since it is one) makes the API surface feel unbalanced. Consider adding `AsyncWriter.asCallerAsyncWriter()` and `CallerAsyncWriter.asAsyncWriter()` as the primary conversions, which is done, but ensure the adapter types are named consistently. (signatures: AsyncWriter.asCallerAsyncWriter(): AsyncWriterCallerAsyncWriterAdapter<Self> | CallerAsyncWriter.asAsyncWriter(initialCapacity: Int): CallerAsyncWriterAsyncWriterAdapter<Self, UniqueArray<WriteElement>> | CallerAsyncWriter.asAsyncWriter(bufferOf: Type, initialCapacity: Int): CallerAsyncWriterAsyncWriterAdapter<Self, Buffer>)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Inconsistent naming strategy for buffer policies. `bounded` is a general term, while `bufferingLatest` and `bufferingOldest` are specific strategies. It is unclear if `bounded` implies a specific strategy (e.g., oldest) or is a generic factory. If `bounded` is a specific strategy, it should be named like the others (e.g., `bufferingBounded` or `bufferingOldest` if that's what it does). If it is a generic factory, the other two should perhaps be `bufferingLatest` and `bufferingOldest` under a `bounded` umbrella, or all should be specific strategies. · ×1
Inconsistent naming strategy for buffer policies. `bounded` is a general term, while `bufferingLatest` and `bufferingOldest` are specific strategies. It is unclear if `bounded` implies a specific strategy (e.g., oldest) or is a generic factory. If `bounded` is a specific strategy, it should be named like the others (e.g., `bufferingBounded` or `bufferingOldest` if that's what it does). If it is a generic factory, the other two should perhaps be `bufferingLatest` and `bufferingOldest` under a `bounded` umbrella, or all should be specific strategies. — Rename `bounded` to a specific strategy name like `bufferingOldest` or `bufferingNewest` to match the pattern of `bufferingLatest` and `bufferingOldest`, or rename all three to a consistent prefix like `policyBounded`, `policyLatest`, `policyOldest`. (signatures: AsyncBufferSequencePolicy.bounded(Int): Self | AsyncBufferSequencePolicy.bufferingLatest(Int): Self | AsyncBufferSequencePolicy.bufferingOldest(Int): Self)
TooManyMethods: AsyncSequence Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncAdjacentPairsSequence.swift:12— TooManyMethods — 42 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 12 over it, 1.40× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: CombineLatestStateMachine Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:15— ClassTooLong — 442 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 9 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 42 over it, 1.11× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Near-duplicate member pair (90 shared lines) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:129— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:129-378 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:119-344 — These two members are variants of one another: 90 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· Edited copy of a member (23 corresponding lines) · ×1
Edited copy of a member (23 corresponding lines) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:221— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:221-252 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStateMachine.swift:259-291 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 23 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication· Edited copy of a member (35 corresponding lines) · ×1
Edited copy of a member (35 corresponding lines) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:72— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:72-139 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStorage.swift:67-108 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 35 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:93— Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:93-102 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:104-115 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:117-130 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:132-147 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Duplicated block (40 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:88— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:88-127 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:78-117 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 140 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:88` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:85` calls `resumeContinuation`, `resume` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:76` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (37 lines × 3) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:171— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:171-207 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:238-274 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:306-342 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:171` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:105— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:105-139 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStorage.swift:74-108 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStorage.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:105` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `stateMachine` to `inout BoundedBufferStateMachine<Base>` in one and `inout UnboundedBufferStateMachine<Base>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (30 lines × 3) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:161— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:161-190 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:221-250 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:282-311 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:161` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:156— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:156-179 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:146-169 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 140 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:156` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (19–23 lines × 6) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:149— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:149-167 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:216-234 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:284-302 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:135-157 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:195-217 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:256-278 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 140 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:149` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (20–22 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:23— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:23-44 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStorage.swift:24-43 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/UnboundedBufferStorage.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Buffer/BoundedBufferStorage.swift:23` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (21–22 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:358— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:358-378 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:323-344 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 140 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:358` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:355` calls `cancelTaskAndUpstreamContinuations`, `resume`, `CancellationError` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:322` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:206— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:206-225 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift:182-202 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStateMachine.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 66 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:206` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `task` to `"Internal inconsistency current state \(self.state) and received upstreamThrew()") case .waitingForDemand(let` in one and `"Internal inconsistency current state \(self.state) and received childTaskSuspended()") case .waitingForDemand(let` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/FlatMapLatest/FlatMapLatestStateMachine.swift:219— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/FlatMapLatest/FlatMapLatestStateMachine.swift:219-238 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/FlatMapLatest/FlatMapLatestStateMachine.swift:333-352 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/FlatMapLatest/FlatMapLatestStateMachine.swift:219` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:34— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:34-49 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:30-45 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 140 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 (15 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:52— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:52-66 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift:48-62 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift` and `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/ZipStorage.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 140 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStorage.swift:52` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncStreaming/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift:335— Sources/AsyncStreaming/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift:335-347 | Sources/AsyncStreaming/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift:359-371 — 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. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:439— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:439-450 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift:453-464 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncReader/AsyncReader+pipe.swift:58— Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncReader/AsyncReader+pipe.swift:58-65 | Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncReader/AsyncReader+pipe.swift:108-116 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncStreaming/AsyncReader/AsyncReader+pipe.swift:58` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:94— Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:94-100 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:106-112 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:120-126 | Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:136-142 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:94` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:113` calls `buildPartialBlock` and `Sources/AsyncSequenceValidation/AsyncSequenceValidationDiagram.swift:101` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/AsyncCombineLatest3Sequence.swift:62— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/AsyncCombineLatest3Sequence.swift:62-66 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Merge/AsyncMerge3Sequence.swift:59-67 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/AsyncZip3Sequence.swift:43-47 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/AsyncCombineLatest3Sequence.swift:86— Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/AsyncCombineLatest3Sequence.swift:86-93 | Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Zip/AsyncZip3Sequence.swift:67-74 — 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `storage` to `CombineLatestStorage<Base1, Base2, Base3>` in one and `ZipStorage<Base1, Base2, Base3>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Off the main sequence: AsyncAlgorithms — AsyncAlgorithms: abstractness 0.01, instability 0.00, distance 0.99 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 2 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Low cohesion: Storage (LCOM4 5) Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncBufferedByteIterator.swift:74— Storage's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Coverage not measured — Swift suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in . produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
Minor — 11 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Most significant orphaned file · ×3
Most significant orphaned file Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Debounce/DebounceStateMachine.swift— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/CombineLatest/CombineLatestStateMachine.swift— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Merge/MergeStateMachine.swift— One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 2 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel+Internal.swift, Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/MultiProducerSingleConsumerChannel/MultiProducerSingleConsumerAsyncChannel.swift. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D16 · Bus Factor· Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 2 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (5 single-owned of 73 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 73 of the 87 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #3 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (16869 LoC, 85 public types across 17 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.
Concentrated knowledge decay — 48 of 73 significant files have no living knowledge, while the repository is still being changed at a low rate (5 commit(s) in the last 90 days) — so this is one repo-wide knowledge-decay state, not 48 separate risks. Counted over 73 of the 87 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. The code moved on without the people who understood these files: document them or schedule a read-through before the next change lands in them.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 863 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
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.
none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)
—
none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved — not scanned yet).
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 32 file(s) — `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncChain2Sequence.swift`, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncChain3Sequence.swift`, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncChunkedByGroupSequence.swift`, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncChunkedOnProjectionSequence.swift`, `Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncChunksOfCountOrSignalSequence.swift`, … (+27 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)
—
none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved — not scanned yet).
0
—
Run 01a0f434-0a48-7ab3-99a8-ab01e076faac · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 2 · Warnings: 252 · Recommendations: 11 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 30-09-2026 @ 21:24 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.