git-branchless — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.

The system holds a strong overall standing of 69%, indicating a healthy asset with solid foundations. However, this score masks a critical vulnerability in how the team understands and maintains the code. While the architecture is robust and the domain modeling is excellent, the maturity of the project is insufficient for its size. This gap creates a risk where new engineers may struggle to contribute effectively, potentially slowing delivery and increasing the cost of future changes. The system is not fragile, but it is not yet resilient to team turnover or complex onboarding scenarios.

The value at stake is significant, with over 36,000 lines of production code and a rebuild effort estimated at half a person-year, costing approximately €76,000. This represents a substantial investment that requires careful stewardship. The codebase is composed entirely of logic, with no boilerplate, suggesting a high degree of custom business value. Protecting this investment means ensuring that the knowledge embedded in the code is accessible and that the processes for maintaining it are clear and repeatable. Without this, the cost of change will rise as the team grows or changes.

The primary risk lies in Maturity, which sits at 62%. This lens measures how easily a new team can pick up the work and how well the project’s history is documented. A low score here means that decisions are not recorded, and new hires lack context, leading to slower onboarding and higher defect rates. This is not a technical failure but an organizational one, where the lack of shared understanding threatens the speed and reliability of delivery. The second theme is Security and Readiness, which are moderate at 66% and 76% respectively. While not critical, these areas indicate that the system is not fully optimized for safe, observable operation in production, leaving some exposure to operational incidents.

What is genuinely good is the Architecture and Domain Modeling, both scoring near perfection. The code is well-structured, and the business logic is clearly represented, which is a rare and valuable strength. This makes the system easy to understand for those who know it, and it provides a solid base for future growth. The high performance score of 91% further confirms that the system is efficient and responsive.

Where to focus first is adding a testing section to the root README. This single action has the most leverage because it immediately improves the onboarding experience for new engineers, directly addressing the maturity gap. It is a low-effort, high-impact change that signals a commitment to clarity and collaboration. By making it easy to run tests, the team reduces the barrier to entry for contributors, which in turn accelerates delivery and reduces the risk of defects. This should be done before any other remediation efforts, as it sets the stage for all future improvements.

Code Health 80% Strong Architecture 97% ★ Exemplary Maturity 62% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 76% Strong Security 66% Adequate · gated by D29, D36 Domain Modelling 100% ★ Exemplary Performance 91% ★ Exemplary

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Maturity 62% · 46% weightSecurity 66% · 25% weightReadiness 76% · 14% weightCode Health 80% · 8% weightPerformance 91% · 4% weightArchitecture 97% · 2% weightDomain Modelling 100% · 1% weight

Raise Maturity 62 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 69 → ~72.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (11+)

11 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-14) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D5 · Unstable project git-branchless-submit
D5 · Off the main sequence: git-branchless-opts
D5 · Off the main sequence: git-branchless-lib
D5 · Off the main sequence: git-branchless-invoke
D22 · Inconsistent entry point naming and signature. The main entry point for the core library is named `main`, while hook and init modules use `command_main`. Furthermore, `main` takes no arguments in the signature provided, whereas `command_main` variants explicitly accept `CommandContext` and specific `Args` types, suggesting a lack of unified command dispatching interface.
D22 · Inconsistent cloning method naming. `Repo` uses `try_clone` while `Dag` also uses `try_clone`. However, in Rust, `try_clone` is often associated with file handles or streams, whereas `clone` or `duplicate` might be more semantically appropriate for graph structures. More importantly, if `Repo` and `Dag` are both core entities, they should ideally share a consistent trait or naming convention for duplication (e.g., both `clone` or both `duplicate`).
D22 · Inconsistent method placement and return type for 'get only parent'. `Commit` has a method `get_only_parent_oid` that returns `NonZeroOid` directly (implying it panics or guarantees existence), while `Dag` has `get_only_parent_oid` that returns `Result`. This creates confusion about whether the operation can fail and where the responsibility for validation lies.
D22 · Redundant and confusingly named methods. `find_commit` and `find_commit_or_fail` both return `Result`. The distinction between them is not clear from the signature alone (likely one returns `Option` inside the Result or panics, but the signature says `Result` for both). This suggests a lack of clarity on error handling strategy.
D22 · Same redundancy as `find_commit`. `find_blob` and `find_blob_or_fail` have identical signatures (`Result`) but different names, implying different error handling behaviors that are not visible in the signature.
D22 · Same redundancy as `find_commit` and `find_blob`. `find_tree` and `find_tree_or_fail` have identical signatures but different names.
D44 · End-of-life runtime: Rust 1.86

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.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €25,000–€130,000

Cost to rebuild	€25,000–€130,000 (0.3–0.8 person-years (422–1,340 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	1.0× (at 69% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€76,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 62% — 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.

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.

+5.8 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.

+5.9 pts · Medium effort · Documentation (README)

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

+5.9 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk

This is a Medium asset (~0.5 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 62%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.5 person-years rebuild (36,385 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 62%

→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity 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: Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.

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.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

93 modules, 320 dependencies. 2 dependency cycles across 15 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 53 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 git_branchless_lib.core.formatting	2 git_branchless_lib.git.oid	3 git_branchless_lib.core.effects	4 git_branchless_lib.core.repo_ext	5 git_branchless_lib.git.tree	6 git_branchless_lib.git.object	7 git_branchless_lib.git.run	8 git_branchless_invoke	9 git_branchless_lib.core.rewrite.plan	10 git_branchless_lib.git.index	11 git_branchless_lib.git.snapshot	12 git_branchless_lib.core.check_out	13 git_branchless_lib.core.rewrite.execute	14 git_branchless_lib.core.rewrite.execute.on_disk	15 git_branchless_lib.git.repo	16 git_branchless_lib.git.reference	17 git_branchless_lib.git.test	18 git_branchless_lib.core.eventlog	19 git_branchless_lib.core.dag	20 git_branchless_lib.core.node_descriptors	23 git_branchless_lib.core.untracked_file_cache	25 git_branchless_navigation	27 git_branchless_smartlog.graph	29 git_branchless_opts	35 git_branchless_submit	36 git_branchless_test
1 git_branchless_lib.core.formatting
2 git_branchless_lib.git.oid
3 git_branchless_lib.core.effects	1
4 git_branchless_lib.core.repo_ext		1
5 git_branchless_lib.git.tree		2													2
6 git_branchless_lib.git.object	1	2			1										2
7 git_branchless_lib.git.run			2												1			1
8 git_branchless_invoke			2				1
9 git_branchless_lib.core.rewrite.plan		3	3			1									2				4
10 git_branchless_lib.git.index		1			1		1								1			1
11 git_branchless_lib.git.snapshot						1				2					2	1
12 git_branchless_lib.core.check_out		1	1				1				1				1			2
13 git_branchless_lib.core.rewrite.execute		1	2				1		1			2			3			3
14 git_branchless_lib.core.rewrite.execute.on_disk			1				1		1				1		1
15 git_branchless_lib.git.repo	1	2	1	1	1	1	1			1				1		3		1
16 git_branchless_lib.git.reference		2													1
17 git_branchless_lib.git.test		1				1									1
18 git_branchless_lib.core.eventlog		1	1												1	3
19 git_branchless_lib.core.dag		1	1	1											3			2
20 git_branchless_lib.core.node_descriptors	9	1		1											4	1		2
21 git_branchless_lib.core.rewrite.execute.in_memory		1	1				1		1				1		1			1
22 git_branchless_lib.core.rewrite.rewrite_hooks		1	1				1								2			1
23 git_branchless_lib.core.untracked_file_cache			1				1								1			1
24 git_branchless.commands.bug_report			2	1			3								2			4	1	1
25 git_branchless_navigation		1	1				1								1				1					2
26 git_branchless_revset.eval			2											1	2				2
27 git_branchless_smartlog.graph		3	1			1									1			2	1	1
28 git_branchless_undo	1		1				1					2			1			5	1
29 git_branchless_opts																					1	1
30 git_branchless.commands.restack			1				1		1				2		1			3	1					3
31 git_branchless.commands.sync			1				1		1				1		2			1	1					3
32 git_branchless_init			1				1	1							1									2
33 git_branchless_record			1				1	1			2				1			2			1			2
34 git_branchless_smartlog.render	1	1	1												1				1				1	2
35 git_branchless_submit		1	1	1			1	1							1			1	1					6
36 git_branchless_test	1	3	5			3	1	1	1				1		2		2	3	3				1	10
37 git_branchless_submit.branch_forge			1	1			1								1			1	1						2
38 git_branchless_submit.github		1	1	1			1								2			1	1						2
39 git_branchless_submit.github.client		2	3				1								1		1								3
40 git_branchless_submit.phabricator		1	1				1								1			1	1					1	2	1

Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 80% · Strong ·

The Good

D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.4 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.8

The Bad

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 6.5 D3 · Rust God Classes 6.4

The Ugly

D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 4.6

At a glance — Architecture · 97% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 8.0 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 8.8 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.8 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.8 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Bad

D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 6.0

At a glance — Maturity · 62% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.9 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 5.4

The Ugly

D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 4.0 D20 · Rust ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 76% · Strong ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 9.0 D11 · Rust Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 9.9 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 7.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 8.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0

At a glance — Security · 66% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 6.8 D31 · Rust IaC & Container Security 9.8 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0

The Bad

D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 6.0

The Ugly

D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 3.5 D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic domain model 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 91% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 8.5 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	39	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	17	Medium
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	4	Medium

Roadmap

Begin by adding a testing section to the root README to clarify how to run the test suite, and establish a dedicated directory for Architecture Decision Records to document significant design choices and their consequences. Concurrently, improve the overall documentation quality by fixing broken links and ensuring READMEs accurately reflect the project scope rather than just individual directories. Finally, refine the public API by restricting internal implementation types to prevent breaking changes for consumers.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+5.8 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.	+5.9 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+5.9 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10.	+4.9 pts	Medium	Documentation Quality
Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life.	+1.4 pts	Low	Platform End-of-Life
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Rust: `pub(crate)`, or keep the module private) so internals can change without breaking consumers.	+1.8 pts	Medium	Library API & versioning
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.	+0.7 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.	+0.7 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 57 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 7% slop · 40% mixed · 53% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.1	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.1	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.4	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED
git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: HackComment
git-branchless-lib/src/git/diff.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
git-branchless/src/commands/amend.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
git-branchless-submit/src/github.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment

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 — 29

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 — 263

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 — 15

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

Could not be resolved — 37

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. 39 of 44 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 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 — 44 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D12D13D15D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9DM4DM5M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF1PF3

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, 281 of 307 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	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0f32c-675f-7c94-b364-0e716cbd8e00.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (42 contributor(s) across 2049 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 85% of the history; the other 41 hold 0.4% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
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.
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.

Repo exclusion declarations: 2 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
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.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
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.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
DM4 Rich vs anemic domain model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D22, 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.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

24 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was git_branchless_move::r#move at 57. A further 2 function(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being OperationType::fmt at 30 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 2 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs (OperationType::fmt at 30), git-branchless-lib/src/core/formatting.rs (git_branchless_lib::core::formatting::render_style_as_ansi at 27). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::in_memory::rebase_in_memory (cyclomatic 31) · ×4git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:461

git_branchless_test::event_loop (cyclomatic 24) · ×4git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1529

git_branchless::commands::split::split (cyclomatic 47) · ×3git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs:48

git_branchless_smartlog::render::get_child_output (cyclomatic 23) · ×3git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs:452

git_branchless_navigation::advance (cyclomatic 23) · ×2git-branchless-navigation/src/lib.rs:90

+ 8 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 git_branchless_lib finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with execute.rs (2), diff.rs, untracked_file_cache.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 git_branchless_test finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with lib.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 git_branchless finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with split.rs, mod.rs, amend.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity4.6 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

36 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was git_branchless_move::r#move at 106.

git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::move_branches (cognitive 59) · ×7git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:27

git_branchless_test::event_loop (cognitive 40) · ×5git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1529

git_branchless::commands::split::split (cognitive 56) · ×3git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs:48

git_branchless_smartlog::graph::build_graph (cognitive 43) · ×3git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs:160

PhabricatorForge::create (cognitive 17) · ×3git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:321

+ 13 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 7 git_branchless_lib finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with execute.rs (3), diff.rs, untracked_file_cache.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 git_branchless_test finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with lib.rs (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 git_branchless finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with split.rs, amend.rs, hide.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

FunctionTooLong: git_branchless::commands::split::split · ×34git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs:48

FileTooLong: src/lib.rs · ×15git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs

MethodTooLong: PhabricatorForge.create · ×7git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:321

ClassTooLong: Repo · ×4git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:466

TooManyMethods: Repo · ×3git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:466

What to do

Resolve the 34 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with lib.rs (24), execute.rs (2), split.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (34 warning-level).
Resolve the 15 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with lib.rs (6), repo.rs, plan.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with phabricator.rs (2), github.rs (2), lib.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Stronggated by 48 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

47 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted.

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×8git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:49

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×4git-branchless/src/commands/restack.rs:329

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×4git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs:179

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:182

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:61

+ 22 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with lib.rs (3), hide.rs, effects.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with lib.rs (2), restack.rs, worktree.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with lib.rs (2), effects.rs, diff.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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.

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

17 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 1 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 3 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 13 of the 17 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: git-branchless-opts · ×3

Unstable project git-branchless-submit

What to do

Resolve the 3 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Unstable project git-branchless-submit 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

0 of 49 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution9.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

433 test methods: 39 unit, 394 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 433 `#[test]` function(s) across 51 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 36 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

Inverted test pyramid

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inverted test pyramid finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d9_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.

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Rust (repository root, 51 test files): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Outdated: indexmap · ×2

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.9 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs (2×57=114); git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs (2×28=56) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: git-branchless-lib/src/testing.rs (4 of 6 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs · ×2git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:67

Repeated repair: git-branchless-lib/src/testing.rsgit-branchless-lib/src/testing.rs:983

What to do

Resolve the 2 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with lib.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with testing.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 10Stronggated by 45 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

45 deducted task-comment markers across 36385 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.

FixmeComment · ×37git-branchless-hook/src/lib.rs:261

TodoComment · ×5git-branchless-lib/src/core/formatting.rs:250

HackComment · ×3git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:476

What to do

Resolve the 37 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with lib.rs (8), plan.rs (5), execute.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (37 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with formatting.rs, phabricator.rs, split.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with plan.rs, execute.rs, parser.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityWeak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README gives an overview and links to a GitHub thread about the branchless workflow suite (branch status badge, CI status badges), but it is clipped mid-table row. The git-branchless-lib/README and scm-bisect/README are directory READMEs documenting their own directories rather than the project; they do not appear in the visible portion of the summary. No architecture/design docs or licence statement.

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10. — The repository's root README gives an overview and links to a GitHub thread about the branchless workflow suite (branch status badge, CI status badges), but it is clipped mid-table row. The git-branchless-lib/README and scm-bisect/README are directory READMEs documenting their own directories rather than the project; they do not appear in the visible portion of the summary. No architecture/design docs or licence statement.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

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.

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

6 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 211 exposed types.

Inconsistent entry point naming and signature. The main entry point for the core library is named `main`, while hook and init modules use `command_main`. Furthermore, `main` takes no arguments in the signature provided, whereas `command_main` variants explicitly accept `CommandContext` and specific `Args` types, suggesting a lack of unified command dispatching interface.

Inconsistent cloning method naming. `Repo` uses `try_clone` while `Dag` also uses `try_clone`. However, in Rust, `try_clone` is often associated with file handles or streams, whereas `clone` or `duplicate` might be more semantically appropriate for graph structures. More importantly, if `Repo` and `Dag` are both core entities, they should ideally share a consistent trait or naming convention for duplication (e.g., both `clone` or both `duplicate`).

Inconsistent method placement and return type for 'get only parent'. `Commit` has a method `get_only_parent_oid` that returns `NonZeroOid` directly (implying it panics or guarantees existence), while `Dag` has `get_only_parent_oid` that returns `Result`. This creates confusion about whether the operation can fail and where the responsibility for validation lies.

Redundant and confusingly named methods. `find_commit` and `find_commit_or_fail` both return `Result`. The distinction between them is not clear from the signature alone (likely one returns `Option` inside the Result or panics, but the signature says `Result` for both). This suggests a lack of clarity on error handling strategy.

Same redundancy as `find_commit`. `find_blob` and `find_blob_or_fail` have identical signatures (`Result`) but different names, implying different error handling behaviors that are not visible in the signature.

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent entry point naming and signature. The main entry point for… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent cloning method naming. `Repo` uses `try_clone` while `Dag`… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent method placement and return type for 'get only parent'.… 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 of 17 build units (Cargo) 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

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

gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

39 finding(s): 0 critical, 29 high, 10 medium, 0 low. 26 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 2 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 26 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 (26 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

17 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 17 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 8 Medium advisory (unsound) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (8). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Medium vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

4 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 1 medium, 3 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 3 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 70 of the 86 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: restack.rs↔sync.rs 55%

Change coupling: restack.rs ↔ sync.rsgit-branchless/src/commands/restack.rs

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

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

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

End-of-life runtime: Rust 1.86

What to do

Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic domain model10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain entities own their behaviour (invariant-enforcing commands) rather than being data-only structs driven by a foreign service.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a domain type's identity-bearing field stays immutable — a `pub` mutable field under a hand-rolled Hash/PartialEq breaks the value-identity invariant.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 15 of 17 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.8 pts.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

170/234 types (73%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Keep implementation types off the public surface (Rust: `pub(crate)`, or keep the module private) so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	80%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	97%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	62%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	76%	Strong	Solid.
Security	66%	Adequate — gated by D29, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	91%	Exemplary	Solid.

Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

X7 Silent fallback defaults — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 77 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the image ran but published no HTTP port — nothing to crawl (EXPOSE the web port to unlock runtime evidence) This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~23330 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 470 shipped crate(s) were read from its REDACTED, but crates.io could not be asked for the licence of 64 of them (HTTP 429 Unknown Error), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Aggregate boundaries — this Rust crate declares no domain aggregate (a struct with private state and its own command methods), so DM1's aggregate-boundary read has no population to be taken over
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — the crate defines newtype typed-ids but declares no domain aggregate that could carry an id — so DM2's adoption ratio has no population to be taken over
DM3 Integration-event coupling — not applicable: no DDD domain layer was detected (no aggregate, entity or value-object structure), so there is no domain model for this card to grade
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary — this Rust crate maps no type to a persistence framework (diesel/sea-orm/sqlx), so DM6's domain↔infrastructure fusion read has no population to be taken over
DM7 Repository granularity — not applicable: no DDD domain layer was detected (no aggregate, entity or value-object structure), so there is no domain model for this card to grade
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
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'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 29 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 1 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 263 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×37

FixmeComment git-branchless-hook/src/lib.rs:261 — // FIXME actually support peeled refs in packed-refs — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-init/src/lib.rs:451 — // FIXME: the path to the man directory is not shell-escaped. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/dag.rs:684 — // FIXME: O(n^2) algorithm ( — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/dag.rs:736 — /// FIXME: this function does not use a total ordering for the sort, which could — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/check_out.rs:280 — // FIXME: it might be worth attempting to un-check-out this commit? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:169 — // FIXME: Untested, this probably doesn't work. Currently, — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:427 — // FIXME: O(n^2) algorithm. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:827 — // FIXME: O(n^2) algorithm. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:1365 — // FIXME: we may recalculate common patch IDs many times, should be — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:1502 — // FIXME: this code path could be optimized further. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:296 — // FIXME: we could check to see if the OIDs are the same and, if so, — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:632 — // FIXME what #perf gains can be had by working directly on a tree? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:666 — // FIXME should we instead be using the description of the base commit? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:1315 — // FIXME: we may still want to propagate the exit code to the — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/git/reference.rs:139 — /// FIXME: This abstraction seems uncomfortable and clunky to use; consider — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/src/git/diff.rs:248 — // FIXME: should we rely on the caller to add the file contents to — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-lib/tests/test_rewrite_plan.rs:448 — // FIXME This output is correct mathematically, but feels like it should — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-opts/src/lib.rs:470 — /// FIXME: write man-page text — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs:141 — // FIXME: unborn HEAD, what to do? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:863 — // which case... FIXME. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:912 — // FIXME: this will exclude commits that used to be part of — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-submit/src/github.rs:321 — // FIXME: is this actually 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.
FixmeComment git-branchless-submit/src/github.rs:829 — // FIXME: destructure and use in `run_gh`? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-submit/src/branch_forge.rs:211 — // FIXME: in principle, it's possible for a branch to have been assigned — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1064 — // FIXME: don't read entire file into memory — 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.
+ 12 more in this group — see findings.md.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×34

FunctionTooLong: git_branchless::commands::split::split git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs:48 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless::commands::split::split runs 385 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 285 over it, 3.85× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_move::r#move git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:67 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_move::r#move runs 347 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 247 over it, 3.47× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::in_memory::rebase_in_memory git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:461 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::in_memory::rebase_in_memory runs 302 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 202 over it, 3.02× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless::commands::amend::amend git-branchless/src/commands/amend.rs:38 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless::commands::amend::amend runs 265 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 165 over it, 2.65× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_lib::git::diff::process_diff_for_record git-branchless-lib/src/git/diff.rs:80 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_lib::git::diff::process_diff_for_record runs 263 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 163 over it, 2.63× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_submit::submit git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs:214 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_submit::submit runs 260 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 160 over it, 2.60× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_undo::describe_event git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:112 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_undo::describe_event runs 242 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 142 over it, 2.42× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_test::apply_fixes git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1935 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_test::apply_fixes runs 223 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 123 over it, 2.23× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_reword::reword git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:86 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_reword::reword runs 198 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 98 over it, 1.98× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless::commands::command_main git-branchless/src/commands/mod.rs:25 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless::commands::command_main runs 194 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 94 over it, 1.94× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_test::run_tests_inner git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1275 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_test::run_tests_inner runs 186 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 86 over it, 1.86× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_test::print_summary git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1733 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_test::print_summary runs 172 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 72 over it, 1.72× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_record::create_commit_with_changes git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs:243 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_record::create_commit_with_changes runs 160 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 60 over it, 1.60× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_lib::core::untracked_file_cache::process_untracked_files git-branchless-lib/src/core/untracked_file_cache.rs:40 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_lib::core::untracked_file_cache::process_untracked_files runs 159 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 59 over it, 1.59× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_test::test_commit git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2644 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_test::test_commit runs 159 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 59 over it, 1.59× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_undo::select_past_event git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:431 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_undo::select_past_event runs 154 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 54 over it, 1.54× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_navigation::advance git-branchless-navigation/src/lib.rs:90 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_navigation::advance runs 153 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 53 over it, 1.53× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_smartlog::render::get_child_output git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs:452 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_smartlog::render::get_child_output runs 152 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_smartlog::smartlog git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs:765 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_smartlog::smartlog runs 146 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 46 over it, 1.46× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_test::event_loop git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1529 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_test::event_loop runs 142 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 42 over it, 1.42× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless::commands::sync::execute_main_branch_sync_plan git-branchless/src/commands/sync.rs:140 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless::commands::sync::execute_main_branch_sync_plan runs 132 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.32× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_reword::prepare_messages git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:431 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_reword::prepare_messages runs 131 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 31 over it, 1.31× 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.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_record::record_interactive git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs:563 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_record::record_interactive runs 130 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.30× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_lib::git::tree::get_changed_paths_between_trees_internal git-branchless-lib/src/git/tree.rs:164 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_lib::git::tree::get_changed_paths_between_trees_internal runs 129 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.29× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: git_branchless_undo::undo_events git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:788 — FunctionTooLong — git_branchless_undo::undo_events runs 127 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 27 over it, 1.27× 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.
+ 9 more in this group — see findings.md.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×15

FileTooLong: src/lib.rs git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 2278 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1778 over it, 4.56× 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: git/repo.rs git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs — FileTooLong — 1152 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 69% of them inside a single declaration: Repo (3 blocks, 466-1693). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 652 over it, 2.30× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: rewrite/plan.rs git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs — FileTooLong — 937 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 437 over it, 1.87× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/github.rs git-branchless-submit/src/github.rs — FileTooLong — 910 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 410 over it, 1.82× 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: rewrite/execute.rs git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs — FileTooLong — 907 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 407 over it, 1.81× 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: core/eventlog.rs git-branchless-lib/src/core/eventlog.rs — FileTooLong — 869 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 369 over it, 1.74× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/phabricator.rs git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs — FileTooLong — 831 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 81% of them inside a single declaration: PhabricatorForge (3 blocks, 233-1081). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 331 over it, 1.66× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 809 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 309 over it, 1.62× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 730 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 230 over it, 1.46× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 658 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 158 over it, 1.32× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/testing.rs git-branchless-lib/src/testing.rs — FileTooLong — 647 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 147 over it, 1.29× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: core/effects.rs git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs — FileTooLong — 628 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 128 over it, 1.26× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/builtins.rs git-branchless-revset/src/builtins.rs — FileTooLong — 600 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 40 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 100 over it, 1.20× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 531 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 31 over it, 1.06× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs git-branchless-init/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 506 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.01× 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.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unsound) · ×8

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×8

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:49 — git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:49-59 | git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:209-219 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs:642 — git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs:642-652 | git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs:657-667 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/core/untracked_file_cache.rs:68 — git-branchless-lib/src/core/untracked_file_cache.rs:68-78 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:287-297 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/git/run.rs:164 — git-branchless-lib/src/git/run.rs:164-174 | git-branchless-lib/src/git/run.rs:233-243 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:735 — git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:735-745 | git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:985-995 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:312 — git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:312-322 | git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:420-430 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:328 — git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:328-338 | git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:371-381 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs:421 — git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs:421-431 | git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs:467-477 — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · git_branchless_lib · ×7

git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::move_branches (cognitive 59) git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:27 — git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::move_branches has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (28 pts), match/switch 7 (24 pts), loops 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 43). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::in_memory::rebase_in_memory (cognitive 58) git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:461 — git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::in_memory::rebase_in_memory has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 10 (24 pts), if/else 11 (23 pts), loops 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 33). 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.
git_branchless_lib::git::diff::process_diff_for_record (cognitive 58) git-branchless-lib/src/git/diff.rs:80 — git_branchless_lib::git::diff::process_diff_for_record has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (32 pts), match/switch 8 (19 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 30). 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.
git_branchless_lib::core::untracked_file_cache::process_untracked_files (cognitive 29) git-branchless-lib/src/core/untracked_file_cache.rs:40 — git_branchless_lib::core::untracked_file_cache::process_untracked_files has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (12 pts), loops 3 (9 pts), if/else 5 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 16). 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.
git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::execute_rebase_plan (cognitive 17) git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:1259 — git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::execute_rebase_plan has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (10 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 8). 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.
git_branchless_lib::core::check_out::check_out_commit (cognitive 17) git-branchless-lib/src/core/check_out.rs:112 — git_branchless_lib::core::check_out::check_out_commit has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
git_branchless_lib::testing::pty::run_in_pty (cognitive 17) git-branchless-lib/src/testing.rs:983 — git_branchless_lib::testing::pty::run_in_pty has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (10 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), match/switch 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.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×7

MethodTooLong: PhabricatorForge.create git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:321 — MethodTooLong — create runs 204 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 104 over it, 2.04× 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: ResolvedTestOptions.resolve git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:221 — MethodTooLong — resolve runs 194 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 94 over it, 1.94× 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: RebasePlanBuilder.make_rebase_plan_for_current_commit git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:755 — MethodTooLong — make_rebase_plan_for_current_commit runs 174 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 74 over it, 1.74× 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: GithubForge.create git-branchless-submit/src/github.rs:196 — MethodTooLong — create runs 129 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.29× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: PhabricatorForge.update git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:571 — MethodTooLong — update runs 129 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.29× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: GithubForge.make_updated_pull_request_info git-branchless-submit/src/github.rs:519 — MethodTooLong — make_updated_pull_request_info runs 123 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.23× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: BranchForge.query_status git-branchless-submit/src/branch_forge.rs:32 — MethodTooLong — query_status runs 117 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 17 over it, 1.17× 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×5

TodoComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/formatting.rs:250 — /// TODO: return something that implements `Display` instead of a `String`. — 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 git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:123 — // TODO: add `default` — 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 git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs:377 — // TODO maybe this should happen after we've confirmed the rebase has succeeded? — 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 git-branchless/src/commands/amend.rs:356 — // TODO: Include the number of uncommitted changes. — 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 scm-bisect/src/basic.rs:157 — /// TODO: Partitioning into groups of approximately equal size isn't — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · git_branchless_test · ×5

git_branchless_test::event_loop (cognitive 40) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1529 — git_branchless_test::event_loop has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (18 pts), match/switch 7 (16 pts), loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
git_branchless_test::print_summary (cognitive 29) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1733 — git_branchless_test::print_summary has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
git_branchless_test::run_tests_inner (cognitive 23) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1275 — git_branchless_test::run_tests_inner has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (11 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), match/switch 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
git_branchless_test::prepare_working_directory (cognitive 17) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2524 — git_branchless_test::prepare_working_directory has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), match/switch 4 (6 pts) (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.
git_branchless_test::apply_fixes (cognitive 16) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1935 — git_branchless_test::apply_fixes has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (7 pts), if/else 4 (5 pts), loops 4 (nesting depth added 3). 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · git_branchless_lib · ×4

git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::in_memory::rebase_in_memory (cyclomatic 31) git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:461 — git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::in_memory::rebase_in_memory has cyclomatic complexity 31 (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.
git_branchless_lib::git::diff::process_diff_for_record (cyclomatic 30) git-branchless-lib/src/git/diff.rs:80 — git_branchless_lib::git::diff::process_diff_for_record has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
git_branchless_lib::core::untracked_file_cache::process_untracked_files (cyclomatic 19) git-branchless-lib/src/core/untracked_file_cache.rs:40 — git_branchless_lib::core::untracked_file_cache::process_untracked_files 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.
git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::move_branches (cyclomatic 17) git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:27 — git_branchless_lib::core::rewrite::execute::move_branches has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · git_branchless_test · ×4

git_branchless_test::event_loop (cyclomatic 24) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1529 — git_branchless_test::event_loop has cyclomatic complexity 24 (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.
git_branchless_test::run_tests_inner (cyclomatic 21) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1275 — git_branchless_test::run_tests_inner has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.
git_branchless_test::print_summary (cyclomatic 18) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1733 — git_branchless_test::print_summary has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
git_branchless_test::apply_fixes (cyclomatic 16) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1935 — git_branchless_test::apply_fixes has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×4

ClassTooLong: Repo git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:466 — ClassTooLong — 800 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 56 methods, 3 blocks, lines 466-1693. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 400 over it, 2.00× 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: PhabricatorForge git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:233 — ClassTooLong — 676 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 7 methods, 3 blocks, lines 233-1081. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 276 over it, 1.69× 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: RebasePlanBuilder git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:562 — ClassTooLong — 543 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 15 methods, 2 blocks, lines 562-1505. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 143 over it, 1.36× 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: GithubForge git-branchless-submit/src/github.rs:110 — ClassTooLong — 428 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 2 methods, 3 blocks, lines 110-698. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) git-branchless/src/commands/restack.rs:329 — git-branchless/src/commands/restack.rs:329-345 | git-branchless/src/commands/sync.rs:89-105 — 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.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/core/worktree.rs:232 — git-branchless-lib/src/core/worktree.rs:232-248 | git-branchless-lib/src/core/worktree.rs:295-311 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1839 — git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1839-1855 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:1869-1885 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2858 — git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2858-2874 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2952-2968 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs:179 — git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs:179-190 | git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs:349-360 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/git/diff.rs:357 — git-branchless-lib/src/git/diff.rs:357-368 | git-branchless-lib/src/git/diff.rs:379-390 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:339 — git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:339-350 | git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:358-369 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:208 — git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:208-219 | git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:225-236 — 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · git_branchless · ×3

git_branchless::commands::split::split (cyclomatic 47) git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs:48 — git_branchless::commands::split::split has cyclomatic complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
git_branchless::commands::command_main (cyclomatic 35) git-branchless/src/commands/mod.rs:25 — git_branchless::commands::command_main has cyclomatic complexity 35 (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.
git_branchless::commands::amend::amend (cyclomatic 20) git-branchless/src/commands/amend.rs:38 — git_branchless::commands::amend::amend has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · git_branchless_smartlog · ×3

git_branchless_smartlog::render::get_child_output (cyclomatic 23) git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs:452 — git_branchless_smartlog::render::get_child_output has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.
git_branchless_smartlog::graph::build_graph (cyclomatic 22) git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs:160 — git_branchless_smartlog::graph::build_graph has cyclomatic complexity 22 (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.
git_branchless_smartlog::smartlog (cyclomatic 20) git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs:765 — git_branchless_smartlog::smartlog has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×3

HackComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:476 — // HACK but this is unused — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/execute.rs:84 — // Hack? Never delete the main branch. We probably got here by syncing the — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment git-branchless-revset/src/parser.rs:23 — // HACK: `lalrpop` doesn't let us customize the text of the string — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · git_branchless · ×3

git_branchless::commands::split::split (cognitive 56) git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs:48 — git_branchless::commands::split::split has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (29 pts), match/switch 16 (22 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
git_branchless::commands::amend::amend (cognitive 23) git-branchless/src/commands/amend.rs:38 — git_branchless::commands::amend::amend has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (15 pts), match/switch 6 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
git_branchless::commands::hide::hide (cognitive 16) git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:24 — git_branchless::commands::hide::hide has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · git_branchless_smartlog · ×3

git_branchless_smartlog::graph::build_graph (cognitive 43) git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs:160 — git_branchless_smartlog::graph::build_graph has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), loops 9 (15 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 20). 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.
git_branchless_smartlog::render::get_child_output (cognitive 31) git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs:452 — git_branchless_smartlog::render::get_child_output has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
git_branchless_smartlog::smartlog (cognitive 29) git-branchless-smartlog/src/lib.rs:765 — git_branchless_smartlog::smartlog has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (16 pts), match/switch 5 (7 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PhabricatorForge · ×3

PhabricatorForge::create (cognitive 17) git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:321 — PhabricatorForge::create has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (10 pts), if/else 4 (5 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 4). 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.
PhabricatorForge::query_status (cognitive 16) git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:244 — PhabricatorForge::query_status has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (8 pts), match/switch 4 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PhabricatorForge::update_dependencies (cognitive 16) git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:884 — PhabricatorForge::update_dependencies has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (7 pts), if/else 3 (6 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×3

TooManyMethods: Repo git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:466 — TooManyMethods — 56 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 26 over it, 1.87× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Dag git-branchless-lib/src/core/dag.rs:132 — 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.
TooManyMethods: Git git-branchless-lib/src/testing.rs:69 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:182 — git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:182-194 | git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:259-271 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:238 — git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:238-250 | git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:257-269 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:161 — git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:161-173 | git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:179-191 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:61 — git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:61-70 | git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:222-231 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/git/object.rs:174 — git-branchless-lib/src/git/object.rs:174-183 | git-branchless-lib/src/git/object.rs:202-211 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:747 — git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:747-756 | git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:997-1006 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×3

Off the main sequence: git-branchless-opts — git-branchless-opts: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.07, distance 0.93 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 13 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: git-branchless-lib — git-branchless-lib: abstractness 0.10, instability 0.00, distance 0.90 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 15 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: git-branchless-invoke — git-branchless-invoke: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.20, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 8 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · git_branchless_navigation · ×2

git_branchless_navigation::advance (cyclomatic 23) git-branchless-navigation/src/lib.rs:90 — git_branchless_navigation::advance has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.
git_branchless_navigation::traverse_commits (cyclomatic 16) git-branchless-navigation/src/lib.rs:313 — git_branchless_navigation::traverse_commits has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×2

Hotspot: git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:67 — git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 57 in git_branchless_move::r#move at line 67. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-04-16..2026-07-15, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-04-16 06:29:12 -04:00' --until='2026-07-15 06:29:12 -04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:221 — git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 28 in ResolvedTestOptions::resolve at line 221. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-04-16..2026-07-15, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-04-16 06:29:12 -04:00' --until='2026-07-15 06:29:12 -04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GithubForge · ×2

GithubForge::create (cognitive 25) git-branchless-submit/src/github.rs:196 — GithubForge::create has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (16 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), if/else 1 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
GithubForge::make_updated_pull_request_info (cognitive 20) git-branchless-submit/src/github.rs:519 — GithubForge::make_updated_pull_request_info has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (11 pts), if/else 3 (5 pts), loops 4 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · git_branchless_undo · ×2

git_branchless_undo::select_past_event (cognitive 16) git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:431 — git_branchless_undo::select_past_event has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). 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.
git_branchless_undo::undo_events (cognitive 16) git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:788 — git_branchless_undo::undo_events has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (7 pts), if/else 6, loops 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:199 — git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:199-216 | git-branchless/src/commands/restack.rs:285-302 — 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 (18 lines × 2) scm-bisect/src/basic.rs:52 — scm-bisect/src/basic.rs:52-69 | scm-bisect/src/basic.rs:84-101 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs:427 — git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs:427-440 | git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:152-165 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) scm-bisect/src/search.rs:427 — scm-bisect/src/search.rs:427-440 | scm-bisect/src/search.rs:444-457 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) git-branchless-lib/src/git/run.rs:137 — git-branchless-lib/src/git/run.rs:137-144 | git-branchless-lib/src/git/run.rs:216-223 | git-branchless/src/commands/wrap.rs:24-31 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:49 — git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:49-56 | git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:209-216 | git-branchless/src/commands/restack.rs:295-302 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:116 — git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:116-123 | git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:124-131 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:1428 — git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:1428-1435 | git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:1436-1443 — 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · git_branchless_move · ×1

git_branchless_move::r#move (cyclomatic 57) git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:67 — git_branchless_move::r#move has cyclomatic complexity 57 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ResolvedTestOptions · ×1

ResolvedTestOptions::resolve (cyclomatic 28) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:221 — ResolvedTestOptions::resolve has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RebasePlanBuilder · ×1

RebasePlanBuilder::make_rebase_plan_for_current_commit (cyclomatic 21) git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:755 — RebasePlanBuilder::make_rebase_plan_for_current_commit has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · git_branchless_reword · ×1

git_branchless_reword::reword (cyclomatic 18) git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:86 — git_branchless_reword::reword has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PhabricatorForge · ×1

PhabricatorForge::create (cyclomatic 18) git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:321 — PhabricatorForge::create has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TestStatus · ×1

TestStatus::describe (cyclomatic 17) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:911 — TestStatus::describe has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · git_branchless_record · ×1

git_branchless_record::create_commit_with_changes (cyclomatic 17) git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs:243 — git_branchless_record::create_commit_with_changes has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · git_branchless_undo · ×1

git_branchless_undo::select_past_event (cyclomatic 16) git-branchless-undo/src/lib.rs:431 — git_branchless_undo::select_past_event has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×1

Repeated repair: git-branchless-lib/src/testing.rs git-branchless-lib/src/testing.rs:983 — git-branchless-lib/src/testing.rs changed 6 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 8 (its worst body is git_branchless_lib::testing::pty::run_in_pty at line 983), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(tests): set TZ env var for test git”; “fix(tests): use correct RFC2822 time format”; “fix(docs): fix warnings for private items”; “fix(tests): fix tests on macOS with Git v2.37”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-04-16..2026-07-15, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-04-16 06:29:12 -04:00' --until='2026-07-15 06:29:12 -04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- git-branchless-lib/src/testing.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · git_branchless_move · ×1

git_branchless_move::r#move (cognitive 106) git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:67 — git_branchless_move::r#move has cognitive complexity 106 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 27 (54 pts), loops 11 (23 pts), match/switch 14 (22 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 47). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RebasePlanBuilder · ×1

RebasePlanBuilder::make_rebase_plan_for_current_commit (cognitive 42) git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:755 — RebasePlanBuilder::make_rebase_plan_for_current_commit has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 9 (21 pts), if/else 15 (18 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · git_branchless_navigation · ×1

git_branchless_navigation::advance (cognitive 41) git-branchless-navigation/src/lib.rs:90 — git_branchless_navigation::advance has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (19 pts), match/switch 8 (18 pts), loops 2 (4 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ResolvedTestOptions · ×1

ResolvedTestOptions::resolve (cognitive 39) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:221 — ResolvedTestOptions::resolve has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 14 (26 pts), if/else 10 (13 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · git_branchless_record · ×1

git_branchless_record::create_commit_with_changes (cognitive 26) git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs:243 — git_branchless_record::create_commit_with_changes has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (21 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · git_branchless_reword · ×1

git_branchless_reword::prepare_messages (cognitive 22) git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:431 — git_branchless_reword::prepare_messages has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BranchForge · ×1

BranchForge::query_status (cognitive 22) git-branchless-submit/src/branch_forge.rs:32 — BranchForge::query_status has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (10 pts), if/else 3 (7 pts), loops 4 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TestStatus · ×1

TestStatus::describe (cognitive 22) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:911 — TestStatus::describe has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (19 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConstraintGraph · ×1

ConstraintGraph::add_constraints (cognitive 19) git-branchless-lib/src/core/rewrite/plan.rs:261 — ConstraintGraph::add_constraints has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 7 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Search · ×1

Search::search (cognitive 19) scm-bisect/src/search.rs:268 — Search::search has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (12 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), if/else 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Repo · ×1

Repo::cherry_pick_fast (cognitive 17) git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:1374 — Repo::cherry_pick_fast has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), 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.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent entry point naming and signature. The main entry point for the core library is named `main`, while hook and init modules use `command_main`. Furthermore, `main` takes no arguments in the signature provided, whereas `command_main` variants explicitly accept `CommandContext` and specific `Args` types, suggesting a lack of unified command dispatching interface. · ×1

Inconsistent entry point naming and signature. The main entry point for the core library is named `main`, while hook and init modules use `command_main`. Furthermore, `main` takes no arguments in the signature provided, whereas `command_main` variants explicitly accept `CommandContext` and specific `Args` types, suggesting a lack of unified command dispatching interface. — Unify the entry point naming convention. If `command_main` is the standard for subcommands/hooks, rename `commands.main` to `command_main` or create a unified `run_command` interface that accepts a context and args, ensuring all entry points follow the same pattern. (signatures: git_branchless.commands.main() | git_branchless_hook.command_main(ctx: CommandContext, args: HookArgs): EyreExitOr | git_branchless_init.command_main(ctx: CommandContext, args: InitArgs): EyreExitOr)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent cloning method naming. `Repo` uses `try_clone` while `Dag` also uses `try_clone`. However, in Rust, `try_clone` is often associated with file handles or streams, whereas `clone` or `duplicate` might be more semantically appropriate for graph structures. More importantly, if `Repo` and `Dag` are both core entities, they should ideally share a consistent trait or naming convention for duplication (e.g., both `clone` or both `duplicate`). · ×1

Inconsistent cloning method naming. `Repo` uses `try_clone` while `Dag` also uses `try_clone`. However, in Rust, `try_clone` is often associated with file handles or streams, whereas `clone` or `duplicate` might be more semantically appropriate for graph structures. More importantly, if `Repo` and `Dag` are both core entities, they should ideally share a consistent trait or naming convention for duplication (e.g., both `clone` or both `duplicate`). — Standardize on `clone` or `duplicate` for both `Repo` and `Dag` if they represent deep copies. If `try_clone` implies a specific shallow copy or error-handling pattern distinct from standard `Clone`, ensure this is documented and consistent across all graph-like entities. (signatures: Dag.try_clone(repo: Repo): Result | Repo.try_clone(): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent method placement and return type for 'get only parent'. `Commit` has a method `get_only_parent_oid` that returns `NonZeroOid` directly (implying it panics or guarantees existence), while `Dag` has `get_only_parent_oid` that returns `Result`. This creates confusion about whether the operation can fail and where the responsibility for validation lies. · ×1

Inconsistent method placement and return type for 'get only parent'. `Commit` has a method `get_only_parent_oid` that returns `NonZeroOid` directly (implying it panics or guarantees existence), while `Dag` has `get_only_parent_oid` that returns `Result`. This creates confusion about whether the operation can fail and where the responsibility for validation lies. — Align the return types. Either both should return `Result<NonZeroOid, Error>` to handle cases where a commit has 0 or >1 parents, or both should panic/return directly if the invariant is strictly enforced at the `Commit` level. Prefer `Result` for consistency and safety. (signatures: Commit.get_only_parent_oid(): NonZeroOid | Dag.get_only_parent_oid(oid: NonZeroOid): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant and confusingly named methods. `find_commit` and `find_commit_or_fail` both return `Result`. The distinction between them is not clear from the signature alone (likely one returns `Option` inside the Result or panics, but the signature says `Result` for both). This suggests a lack of clarity on error handling strategy. · ×1

Redundant and confusingly named methods. `find_commit` and `find_commit_or_fail` both return `Result`. The distinction between them is not clear from the signature alone (likely one returns `Option` inside the Result or panics, but the signature says `Result` for both). This suggests a lack of clarity on error handling strategy. — Rename `find_commit_or_fail` to `get_commit` or `require_commit` if it panics on failure, or ensure the `Result` type clearly distinguishes between 'not found' and 'other error'. Alternatively, remove `find_commit_or_fail` if `find_commit` is sufficient and handles errors consistently. (signatures: Repo.find_commit(oid: NonZeroOid): Result | Repo.find_commit_or_fail(oid: NonZeroOid): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Same redundancy as `find_commit`. `find_blob` and `find_blob_or_fail` have identical signatures (`Result`) but different names, implying different error handling behaviors that are not visible in the signature. · ×1

Same redundancy as `find_commit`. `find_blob` and `find_blob_or_fail` have identical signatures (`Result`) but different names, implying different error handling behaviors that are not visible in the signature. — Unify naming. Use `find_blob` for optional retrieval and `get_blob` or `require_blob` for fallible/panicking retrieval, ensuring the return types reflect the difference (e.g., `Option` vs `Result` or `Self` vs `Result`). (signatures: Repo.find_blob(oid: NonZeroOid): Result | Repo.find_blob_or_fail(oid: NonZeroOid): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Same redundancy as `find_commit` and `find_blob`. `find_tree` and `find_tree_or_fail` have identical signatures but different names. · ×1

Same redundancy as `find_commit` and `find_blob`. `find_tree` and `find_tree_or_fail` have identical signatures but different names. — Unify naming. Use `find_tree` for optional retrieval and `get_tree` or `require_tree` for fallible/panicking retrieval, ensuring the return types reflect the difference. (signatures: Repo.find_tree(oid: NonZeroOid): Result | Repo.find_tree_or_fail(oid: NonZeroOid): Result)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×1

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1

Change coupling: restack.rs ↔ sync.rs git-branchless/src/commands/restack.rs — `git-branchless/src/commands/restack.rs` and `git-branchless/src/commands/sync.rs` change together 55% of the time (18 of the 33 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 18 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `86064828` refactor: add force_detach checkout option; `4c97eb6a` feat(sync): don't try to resolve merge commit rebases on-disk; `3aa574fb` refactor(rewrite): have `RebasePlanPermissions` consume `BuildRebaseP… — run `git show` on any of them.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:79 — git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:79-548 | git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:93-326 | git-branchless/src/commands/bug_report.rs:174-226 | git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:31-183 | git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:192-272 | git-branchless/src/commands/restack.rs:277-373 | git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs:56-612 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/core/worktree.rs:195 — git-branchless-lib/src/core/worktree.rs:195-229 | git-branchless-lib/src/core/worktree.rs:255-289 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs:147 — git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs:147-174 | git-branchless-lib/src/core/effects.rs:317-344 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:346 — git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:346-368 | git-branchless-submit/src/phabricator.rs:596-618 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:611 — git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:611-625 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2869-2882 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 5) git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:95 — git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:95-106 | git-branchless/src/commands/bug_report.rs:178-189 | git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:35-46 | git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:196-209 | git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs:58-69 — there are 5 copies across 4 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 5 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–14 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–14 lines × 5) git-branchless-query/src/lib.rs:52 — git-branchless-query/src/lib.rs:52-62 | git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs:231-241 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:595-608 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2857-2867 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2951-2961 — before extracting anything, compare `git-branchless-query/src/lib.rs` and `git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 31 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) git-branchless-revset/src/builtins.rs:677 — git-branchless-revset/src/builtins.rs:677-689 | git-branchless-revset/src/builtins.rs:710-722 | git-branchless-revset/src/builtins.rs:745-757 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 6) git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:103 — git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:103-114 | git-branchless-reword/src/lib.rs:95-106 | git-branchless/src/commands/bug_report.rs:178-189 | git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:35-46 | git-branchless/src/commands/hide.rs:196-207 | git-branchless/src/commands/split.rs:58-69 — there are 6 copies across 5 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 6 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 6) git-branchless-query/src/lib.rs:51 — git-branchless-query/src/lib.rs:51-62 | git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs:230-241 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:594-603 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2856-2867 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2950-2961 | git-branchless/src/commands/amend.rs:50-59 — before extracting anything, compare `git-branchless-query/src/lib.rs` and `git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 31 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs:402 — git-branchless-record/src/lib.rs:402-411 | git-branchless/src/commands/sync.rs:152-161 | git-branchless/src/commands/sync.rs:319-328 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:1234 — git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:1234-1242 | git-branchless-lib/src/git/repo.rs:1262-1270 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:117 — git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:117-123 | git-branchless-move/src/lib.rs:125-131 | git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs:242-248 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) git-branchless-lib/src/git/tree.rs:171 — git-branchless-lib/src/git/tree.rs:171-177 | git-branchless-lib/src/git/tree.rs:179-185 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) git-branchless-navigation/src/lib.rs:358 — git-branchless-navigation/src/lib.rs:358-364 | git-branchless-navigation/src/lib.rs:488-493 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2377 — git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2377-2382 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2490-2495 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 5) git-branchless-query/src/lib.rs:48 — git-branchless-query/src/lib.rs:48-52 | git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs:227-231 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2947-2951 | git-branchless/src/commands/amend.rs:47-51 | git-branchless/src/commands/repair.rs:18-22 — before extracting anything, compare `git-branchless-query/src/lib.rs` and `git-branchless-submit/src/lib.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 31 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:589 — git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:589-593 | git-branchless-test/src/lib.rs:2851-2855 — 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.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life runtime · ×1

End-of-life runtime: Rust 1.86 — rust-toolchain.toml declares Rust 1.86 as this project's toolchain file, and Rust 1.86, superseded by 1.87 on 2025-05-15 (the Rust project patches only the current stable). An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2025-05-15 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.

D5 · Coupling · Unstable project git-branchless-submit · ×1

Unstable project git-branchless-submit — git-branchless-submit has instability 0.83 with 1 dependents.

M1 · Documentation (README) · README may be stale · ×1

README may be stale — 28 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

Minor — 13 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 17 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 8.8/10. The most over is `git-branchless-lib` (15303 LoC, 135 public types across 5 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.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D9 · Test Distribution · Inverted test pyramid · ×1

Inverted test pyramid — Only 9 % of tests are unit tests (39 unit vs 394 integration, 0 BDD); a broader unit base gives faster, more localised feedback.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 170/234 types (73%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

X7 · Silent fallback defaults · Silent fallback default on Err · ×1

Silent fallback default on Err git-branchless/src/commands/sync.rs:278 — `execute_main_branch_sync_plan` turns every `Err` into `Ok(Ok(()))` — a failure becomes a plausible value and a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or propagate it with `?`. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the arm or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.

Minor — 2 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×2

Outdated: indexmap — `indexmap` is locked at 2.14.0 but 2.14.2 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2"` requirement declared in scm-bisect/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p indexmap` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: thiserror — `thiserror` is locked at 2.0.18 but 2.0.21 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"2"` requirement declared in scm-bisect/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p thiserror` and commit the updated REDACTED.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-5c040f436ad74c1988d337974feff424/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-5c040f436ad74c1988d337974feff424/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	39	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	17	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	4	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a0f32c-675f-7c94-b364-0e716cbd8e00 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Arxanas/git-Branchless

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 80% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 97% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 62% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 76% · Strong ·

At a glance — Security · 66% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Performance · 91% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts