Public report of awslabs/swift-aws-lambda-runtime, published 29 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 29 October 2026, 13:29 UTC · Survey ID cd_2e9e1394cec94dc2be2efef78bb3ad23
awslabs/swift-aws-lambda-runtime
Measured 29 October 2026, 13:27 UTC, at code version 8abd464
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
Dependency hygiene is not measured: SwiftPM pinning read, dependency currency NOT established (SwiftPM has no central registry to ask).
Supply-chain provenance & signing is not measured: Supply-chain provenance is not scored (this pipeline releases no artifact), but its build steps or GitHub Actions workflows have integrity defects, or nothing watches its dependency set for published advisories.
CAI scoreAdequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Down 5 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A small codebase: 12,564 lines of product code in 3 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 48
Findings by how serious they are
10 critical96 serious15 minor
31 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
29 October 2026, 13:27 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
45of 45 dimensions measured by tools.
90of 121 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 31 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
45dimensions across 7 lenses, read from 12,564 lines of product code in 3 projects.
awslabs/swift-aws-lambda-runtime falls short of our standard for production because we found no automated security scanning of the code, its secrets or its dependencies. It scores 62 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, and all ten of its critical findings are security problems in the build pipeline.
Production Readiness, at 48, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step for the work it takes is fixing the part of the code only one person knows, worth about 3 points. Documenting the recovery plan would lift Production Readiness itself, worth about 4 points. Raising Production Readiness to 70 would lift the score to about 71.
Ten pipeline tools are referenced by a changeable name, so the build pipeline can be tampered with. Pinning each tool to an exact version would close this risk.
The product code is 12,564 lines, about €23,000 to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
If Production Readiness rose from 48 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 62 to about 71.
Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 60%Tests 40%
Rebuild cost: about €23,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€7,800 to €39,000, for 129 to 410 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.9 at a score of 62. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Small: 12,564 lines of product code
What it is not
Not a quotation: nobody has offered to build it for that. Not a valuation: it says nothing about what the business is worth. Not a certified figure: no professional has signed it as one.
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.
Raises the score by about 3 points · Low effort · Bus Factor
2
Record your significant design decisions.
Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
Raises the score by about 4 points · Medium effort · DR & Backup
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €23,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 48 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 3 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 Bus Factor findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways, which only happens where the projects form a dependency cycle. A graph without cycles has none.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
3 modules, with 4 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 2 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1→2 AWSLambdaRuntime uses AWSLambdaPluginHelperpart of a loop✕
Connections
33 pairs of types, where a type in AWSLambdaRuntime uses a type in AWSLambdaPluginHelper. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
AWSLambdaRuntime uses AWSLambdaPluginHelper, so a change to AWSLambdaPluginHelper can break AWSLambdaRuntime, while a change to AWSLambdaRuntime can't break AWSLambdaPluginHelper.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
AWSLambdaPluginHelper uses AWSLambdaRuntime, so a change to AWSLambdaRuntime can break AWSLambdaPluginHelper, while a change to AWSLambdaPluginHelper can't break AWSLambdaRuntime.
Position
Below the diagonal: AWSLambdaPluginHelper uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
MockServer uses AWSLambdaPluginHelper, so a change to AWSLambdaPluginHelper can break MockServer, while a change to MockServer can't break AWSLambdaPluginHelper.
Position
Below the diagonal: MockServer uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
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
A05:2025 — Injection
10
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by documenting significant design decisions in a centralized ADR folder and establishing a tested disaster recovery procedure with clear RTO and RPO targets. Simultaneously, maintain a release changelog to track shipped features and resolve the identified bus factor risk to ensure team continuity. Finally, improve performance by increasing allocation-aware density on hot code paths to reduce runtime overhead.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 8 use(s) across 11,160 production line(s) (~0.7/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (swift-otel with swift-distributed-tracing) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your Vapor/Hummingbird router) for operability.
Resolve the 11 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with LambdaRuntimeClientChannelLifecycleTests.swift (4), DeployerECRTests.swift (2), LambdaRuntimeClientTests.swift (2).
Resolve the 4 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with LambdaRequestID.swift, LambdaRuntime+Codable.swift, ControlPlaneRequestEncoder.swift.
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 — 10
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 — 96
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 — 31
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. 45 of 45 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.8 — 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 — 45 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 90 of 121 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
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: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in . produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo. In the meantime, commit (or publish into the working tree) the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and the real number is read on the next scan. You can widen what we reach: optional: commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces, and the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.swift) and this repository declares a SwiftPM test suite (3 packages), but it was not re-run: the analyzer environment could not run it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 49 SwiftPM declaration(s) across 25 `Package.swift` and 0 committed pin(s) were read for PINNING discipline (24 defect(s) reported), but the outdated signal comes from listing each declared repository's release tags rather than from a registry, and none of them resolved to a version to compare, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 1 of this repository's SwiftPM dependencies could not be fetched at a pinned revision and are repositories api.deps.dev has not indexed, so their licences were not read and the verdict does not cover them: hummingbird-lambda.
D21 Naming Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22's deterministic call-shape rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. This says nothing about whether that surface is consistent.
D24 Comment Value — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `Examples/Streaming+Codable/Sources/LambdaStreaming+Codable.swift`, `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift`, `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-init/Template.swift`, `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/FoundationSupport/LambdaRuntime+JSON.swift`, `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/ControlPlaneRequest.swift`, … (+12 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
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.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust or Dart was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, TypeScript/JavaScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and Scala, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality publishes two things only: a runnable or packaged unit with no example, and a multi-project root README that maps none of its parts. It does not judge clarity, and its other checks (overview, licence, boilerplate, structure, empty sections, XML-doc coverage) are withheld after adjudication: their candidates are counted in the card's gaps, not shown as rows. A false statement in a document is M4's; units are .NET projects only.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
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.
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.
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
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.
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.
5 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Deployer.deploy at 28. A further 1 method(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 BuilderErrors.description at 16 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
Bring the 5 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Deployer.deploy (cyclomatic 28), LambdaRuntimeClient.channelClosed (cyclomatic 25), BuilderConfiguration.init (cyclomatic 17). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 5 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.9 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
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.
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.
+ 9 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 2 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with Deployer.deploy (cognitive 71), LambdaRuntimeClient.channelClosed (cognitive 40). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 2 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 5.9 to about 7.5/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 30; a cleaner split scores higher.
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 Classes9.3 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 2 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Deployer.swift, Deployer+Zip.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Deployer.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
25 duplicated block group(s) detected. 8 of the 25 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, project-template, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.
+ 13 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AppleContainerCLI.swift, LambdaRuntimeClient.swift, main.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with LambdaManagedRuntime.swift, main.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Lambda+LocalServer.swift, main.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.
3 production modules (SwiftPM), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence.
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.
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
322 test methods: 322 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality9.5 / 10Stronggated by 11 serious findings✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
0 skipped, 11 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 322 tests.
No assertions: missingRequiredCLIThrows · ×11Tests/AWSLambdaPluginHelperTests/DeployerECRTests.swift:143
What to do
Resolve the 11 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with LambdaRuntimeClientChannelLifecycleTests.swift (4), DeployerECRTests.swift (2), LambdaRuntimeClientTests.swift (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 10 SwiftPM package(s) use a banned license. SwiftPM has no package registry, so each package's licence is the one its repository declares: 0 of them read from the licence file the repository carries at the revision Package.resolved pins, and 10 — unpinned, or whose licence file could not be read or named — from api.deps.dev, which reports the licence the repository declares today. Graded: every package a committed Package.resolved pins, direct and transitive, and every declared dependency none pins. 49 of them are declared by a manifest that commits no Package.resolved (a library, whose resolution is its consumer's), so their own dependencies are resolved by whoever builds it and are not in this verdict. ★ 1 package(s) could not be read at a pinned revision and are not known to the index, and were NOT graded — this verdict does not cover them: `hummingbird-lambda`.
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.
Resolve the 3 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with Builder.swift, Deployer.swift, Process.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
19 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift. Counted over 50 of the 79 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
10 deducted task-comment markers across 12564 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.9. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
Resolve the 9 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift (4), LambdaRequestIDTests.swift, MockLambdaClient.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Every README, docs/ document and root guide parsed by its markup and measured in Unicode letters. Published: a runnable or packaged .NET project whose README (or a document it links, or a root guide) shows no example, and a root README naming none of three or more projects. Overview, licence, boilerplate, wall-of-text, empty-section and XML-doc rows are measured and withheld (counted in gaps) after adjudication. Deterministic, exhaustive, advisory.
1 of 1 build units (SwiftPM) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
10 finding(s): 0 critical, 10 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 10 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 4 file(s) — `.github/workflows/scripts/use-local-deps.sh` (line 25), `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/Docs.docc/Resources/code/03-04-07-terminal.sh` (line 4), `scripts/lambda-performance/shared-utils.sh` (line 73, line 77, line 90), `scripts/local_performance_test.sh` (line 101, line 135) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 8 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 (8 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 2 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether 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.
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.
4 of 50 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/LambdaRequestID.swift. Counted over 50 of the 79 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
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.
What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.
Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.
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.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.
Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.
Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.
Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the recovery-replay fold is deterministic — state derived purely from each event's own fields, no clock/random/IO on the replay path.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.
Other · Event Sourcing — Whether domain events stay immutable (a `struct` with `let` fields) rather than carrying mutable state.
Method: Roslyn scan (event-sourcing gated): persisted events checked for public setters; immutability verified per property/field. Deterministic, hard fact.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 1 of 25 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.1 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.
Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
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.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (swift-otel with swift-distributed-tracing) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your Vapor/Hummingbird router) for operability.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 8548 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner. — REDACTED:4
`Examples/CDK/infra/package.json` declares packages, and nothing in the repository keeps them current: no Dependabot or Renovate configuration that schedules updates, and no dependency-review gate on pull requests. A pinned dependency stays at the version it was added at until someone notices — including after an advisory is published against it. Add a `.github/dependabot.yml` with one `package-ecosystem` entry per ecosystem the tree uses (or an enabled `renovate.json`), and gate pull requests with `actions/dependency-review-action`. — Examples/CDK/infra/package.json:12
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.
Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.
What to do
Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
Enable purge protection / soft-delete (and prevent_destroy on critical resources) so data stores can't be lost to an accidental or malicious delete.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
What to do
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 8 use(s) across 11,160 production line(s) (~0.7/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Swift: on hot paths, reserveCapacity before appending, use ContiguousArray for class-element arrays, work in place with withUnsafeBufferPointer/withUnsafeTemporaryAllocation, and make large values ~Copyable with borrowing/consuming parameters.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
`sleep` is async and calls sleep — a blocking call inside async code stalls the cooperative pool's thread — one per core — and every task scheduled on it for as long as it runs. — Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/LambdaClock.swift:171
What to do
Swift: await instead of blocking — `try await Task.sleep(for:)` for Thread.sleep/sleep, a checked continuation instead of a DispatchSemaphore or DispatchGroup wait, the async Process and URLSession APIs; never park a thread waiting on a Task — the cooperative pool cannot guarantee it progress.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
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.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 2 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
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.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
Not included — 73 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: this repository's Swift imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's TypeScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No Swift request handler (a Vapor, Hummingbird, Kitura, Swifter or Perfect route handler, as a method or a registered closure) is declared, so no state is shared between request threads. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
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 — no exported interface declares behaviour
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named property (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a SwiftData @Model, a Core Data, Realm, GRDB or Fluent type, a GRDB or SQLite.swift column, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (CoreData, SwiftData, GRDB, RealmSwift, SQLite, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named property (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a SwiftData @Model, a Core Data, Realm, GRDB or Fluent type, a GRDB or SQLite.swift column, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (CoreData, SwiftData, GRDB, RealmSwift, SQLite, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .swift suite was found but not re-run
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 49 SwiftPM declaration(s) across 25 `Package.swift` and 0 committed pin(s) were read for PINNING discipline (24 defect(s) reported), but the outdated signal comes from listing each declared repository's release tags rather than from a registry, and none of them resolved to a version to compare, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; Swift, TypeScript not measured.
D22 Internal API Consistency — API consistency is measured on C# only; the exposed Swift surface was not measured.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ sibling projects each declaring an entity of their own or taking another project's integration events. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — D24 reads C# and Visual Basic comments only — this repository's production source is .swift, .ts, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.swift), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 17 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
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 measured — Swift suite
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
M4 Documentation accuracy — Not applicable: the 3 current-state document(s) make no claim of a kind M4 checks. 1 claim(s) of kinds M4 does not check were not checked (command argument 1); M4 checks only links and versions and artefact counts.
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 — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the Swift source (service entry point: Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/Runtime/LambdaHandlers.swift:160 (: LambdaHandler))
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 — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `Benchmark("…")` in a file importing package-benchmark, or package-benchmark in Package.swift, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
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.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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
X12 Unreachable branch — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X13 Undrained process stream — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X2 Cancellation propagation — 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 asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — Not applicable: this check looks for a pattern guard or `case` label that increments, decrements or assigns while the switch is deciding whether it matches, and in this repository's languages none can. Swift has no `++` or `--`, and an assignment yields `()`, which cannot be an operand of `&&`, `||` or `?:` nor the Bool a `case … where` clause needs. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X25 Inert configuration knob — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — Not applicable: this check looks for a loop whose body adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is walking, invalidating the enumerator it holds, and in this repository's languages that cannot happen. Swift's `Array`, `Dictionary` and `Set` are values: `for x in items` walks the copy taken when the loop starts, so a body that adds to or removes from `items` changes a different value, nothing is invalidated, and every original element is still visited. This repository's Swift names no Foundation mutable collection (`NSMutableArray` and kin), the one kind a Swift loop can walk by reference. Not a gap in the analyzer and 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
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
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.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
No assertions: missingRequiredCLIThrows Tests/AWSLambdaPluginHelperTests/DeployerECRTests.swift:143— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: flatManifestThrowsNotAnIndex Tests/AWSLambdaPluginHelperTests/DeployerECRTests.swift:213— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testSendableHandlerRequirement Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/LambdaManagedRuntimeTests.swift:63— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testOldChannelCleanupDuringShutdown Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/LambdaRuntimeClientChannelLifecycleTests.swift:118— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testShutdownWithMultipleOldChannels Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/LambdaRuntimeClientChannelLifecycleTests.swift:184— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testRapidReconnections Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/LambdaRuntimeClientChannelLifecycleTests.swift:374— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testConcurrentOperationsDuringTransitions Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/LambdaRuntimeClientChannelLifecycleTests.swift:437— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testStreamingResponseHeaders Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/LambdaRuntimeClientTests.swift:131— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testStreamingResponseHeadersWithCustomStatus Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/LambdaRuntimeClientTests.swift:158— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testLambdaRuntimeGracefulShutdown Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/LambdaRuntime+ServiceLifeCycle.swift:24— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testPoolCancellation Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/PoolTests.swift:44— This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
TodoComment Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/LambdaRequestIDTests.swift:123— // TODO: I would love to enforce that the nsstring is not contiguous — 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 Tests/AWSLambdaRuntimeTests/MockLambdaClient.swift:136— // TODO: use Deque — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPServer/Lambda+LocalServer.swift:77— // TODO: investigate and solve the root cause — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift:244— // TODO: This feels super expensive. We should be able to make this cheaper. requestIDs are fixed length. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift:273— // TODO: This feels quite expensive. We should be able to make this cheaper. requestIDs are fixed length. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift:317— // TODO: This feels quite expensive. We should be able to make this cheaper. requestIDs are fixed length — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift:334— // TODO: Write this directly into our ByteBuffer — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+Zip.swift:66— // TODO: remove this fallback when the AWSLambdaPackager plugin is retired — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/ZipArchiveBackend.swift:37— // TODO: explore using ziplib or similar instead of shelling out — 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.
Hotspot: Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/Builder.swift Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/Builder.swift:207— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/Builder.swift changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in BuilderConfiguration.init at line 207. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 7 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-24..2026-09-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-24 08:42:54 +02:00' --until='2026-09-22 08:42:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/Builder.swift`: 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: Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift:109— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 28 in Deployer.deploy at line 109. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 2 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-24..2026-09-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-24 08:42:54 +02:00' --until='2026-09-22 08:42:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift`: 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: Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/Process.swift Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/Process.swift:22— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/Process.swift changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in Utils.execute at line 22. 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 2026-06-24..2026-09-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-24 08:42:54 +02:00' --until='2026-09-22 08:42:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/Process.swift`: 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.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/AppleContainerCLI.swift:49— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/AppleContainerCLI.swift:49-59 | Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/DockerCLI.swift:45-55 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/AppleContainerCLI.swift:49` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient.swift:257— Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient.swift:257-267 | Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient.swift:279-289 — 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.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Examples/MultiTenant/Sources/MultiTenant/main.swift:96— Examples/MultiTenant/Sources/MultiTenant/main.swift:96-106 | Examples/MultiTenant/Sources/MultiTenantLocal/main.swift:106-116 — 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.
MethodTooLong: Deployer.deploy Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift:109— MethodTooLong — deploy runs 158 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 58 over it, 1.58× 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: Deployer.deployZip Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+Zip.swift:33— MethodTooLong — deployZip runs 110 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 10 over it, 1.10× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/ManagedRuntime/LambdaManagedRuntime.swift:43— Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/ManagedRuntime/LambdaManagedRuntime.swift:43-60 | Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/Runtime/LambdaRuntime.swift:59-76 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/ManagedRuntime/LambdaManagedRuntime.swift:43` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Examples/BackgroundTasks/Sources/main.swift:36— Examples/BackgroundTasks/Sources/main.swift:36-53 | Examples/ManagedInstances/Sources/BackgroundTasks/main.swift:38-55 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/BackgroundTasks/Sources/main.swift` and `Examples/ManagedInstances/Sources/BackgroundTasks/main.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 93% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPServer/Lambda+LocalServer.swift:453— Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPServer/Lambda+LocalServer.swift:453-465 | Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPServer/Lambda+LocalServer.swift:484-496 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPServer/Lambda+LocalServer.swift:453` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Examples/APIGatewayV2+LambdaAuthorizer/Sources/APIGatewayLambda/main.swift:19— Examples/APIGatewayV2+LambdaAuthorizer/Sources/APIGatewayLambda/main.swift:19-31 | Examples/APIGatewayV2/Sources/main.swift:19-31 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/APIGatewayV2+LambdaAuthorizer/Sources/APIGatewayLambda/main.swift` and `Examples/APIGatewayV2/Sources/main.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:162— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:162-170 | Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/ZipArchiveBackend.swift:79-88 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:162` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/ContainerBuildBackend.swift:75— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/ContainerBuildBackend.swift:75-83 | Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/ContainerBuildBackend.swift:122-131 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/ContainerBuildBackend.swift:122` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/ControlPlaneRequestEncoder.swift:63— Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/ControlPlaneRequestEncoder.swift:63-70 | Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/ControlPlaneRequestEncoder.swift:75-82 — 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) Examples/MultiTenant/Sources/MultiTenant/main.swift:73— Examples/MultiTenant/Sources/MultiTenant/main.swift:73-80 | Examples/MultiTenant/Sources/MultiTenantLocal/main.swift:82-89 — 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 (5 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift:128— Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift:128-132 | Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift:211-215 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift:128` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Examples/HelloWorld/Sources/main.swift:20— Examples/HelloWorld/Sources/main.swift:20-25 | Examples/OCIImage/Sources/main.swift:21-25 — 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.
Deployer.deploy (cyclomatic 28) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift:109— Deployer.deploy has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
LambdaRuntimeClient.channelClosed (cyclomatic 25) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient.swift:298— LambdaRuntimeClient.channelClosed has cyclomatic complexity 25 (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.
BuilderConfiguration.init (cyclomatic 17) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/Builder.swift:207— BuilderConfiguration.init has cyclomatic complexity 17 (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.
Utils.execute (cyclomatic 16) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/Process.swift:22— Utils.execute has cyclomatic complexity 16 (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.
LambdaRequestID.== (cyclomatic 16) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/LambdaRequestID.swift:120— LambdaRequestID.== has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/APIGatewayV1/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/APIGatewayV1/Package.swift) — Examples/APIGatewayV1/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/APIGatewayV2+LambdaAuthorizer/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/APIGatewayV2+LambdaAuthorizer/Package.swift) — Examples/APIGatewayV2+LambdaAuthorizer/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/APIGatewayV2/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/APIGatewayV2/Package.swift) — Examples/APIGatewayV2/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/BackgroundTasks/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/BackgroundTasks/Package.swift) — Examples/BackgroundTasks/Package.swift declares 1 dependency and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/CDK/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/CDK/Package.swift) — Examples/CDK/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/HelloJSON/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/HelloJSON/Package.swift) — Examples/HelloJSON/Package.swift declares 1 dependency and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/HelloWorld/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/HelloWorld/Package.swift) — Examples/HelloWorld/Package.swift declares 1 dependency and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/HelloWorldNoTraits/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/HelloWorldNoTraits/Package.swift) — Examples/HelloWorldNoTraits/Package.swift declares 1 dependency and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/HummingbirdLambda/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/HummingbirdLambda/Package.swift) — Examples/HummingbirdLambda/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/JSONLogging/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/JSONLogging/Package.swift) — Examples/JSONLogging/Package.swift declares 1 dependency and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/ManagedInstances/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/ManagedInstances/Package.swift) — Examples/ManagedInstances/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/MultiSourceAPI/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/MultiSourceAPI/Package.swift) — Examples/MultiSourceAPI/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/MultiTenant/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/MultiTenant/Package.swift) — Examples/MultiTenant/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/OCIImage/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/OCIImage/Package.swift) — Examples/OCIImage/Package.swift declares 1 dependency and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/ResourcesPackaging/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/ResourcesPackaging/Package.swift) — Examples/ResourcesPackaging/Package.swift declares 1 dependency and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/S3EventNotifier/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/S3EventNotifier/Package.swift) — Examples/S3EventNotifier/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/S3_AWSSDK/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/S3_AWSSDK/Package.swift) — Examples/S3_AWSSDK/Package.swift declares 3 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/S3_Soto/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/S3_Soto/Package.swift) — Examples/S3_Soto/Package.swift declares 3 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/ServiceLifecycle+Postgres/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/ServiceLifecycle+Postgres/Package.swift) — Examples/ServiceLifecycle+Postgres/Package.swift declares 4 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/Streaming+APIGateway/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/Streaming+APIGateway/Package.swift) — Examples/Streaming+APIGateway/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/Streaming+Codable/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/Streaming+Codable/Package.swift) — Examples/Streaming+Codable/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/Streaming+FunctionUrl/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/Streaming+FunctionUrl/Package.swift) — Examples/Streaming+FunctionUrl/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/Testing/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/Testing/Package.swift) — Examples/Testing/Package.swift declares 2 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Examples/Tutorial/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Examples/Tutorial/Package.swift) — Examples/Tutorial/Package.swift declares 1 dependency and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
FixmeComment Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient+ChannelHandler.swift:96— // FIXME: the eror handling should inject these headers in the streamed response to report mid-stream errors — 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.
Deployer.deploy (cognitive 71) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift:109— Deployer.deploy has cognitive complexity 71 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (55 pts), error handling 3 (8 pts), ternaries 2 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 39). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
LambdaRuntimeClient.channelClosed (cognitive 40) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient.swift:298— LambdaRuntimeClient.channelClosed has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (35 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ZipArchiveBackend.archive (cognitive 27) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/ZipArchiveBackend.swift:38— ZipArchiveBackend.archive has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (16 pts), error handling 1 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (2 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.
Deployer.deployZip (cognitive 22) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+Zip.swift:33— Deployer.deployZip has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (17 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (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.
LambdaHTTPServer.handleConnection (cognitive 21) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPServer/Lambda+LocalServer.swift:245— LambdaHTTPServer.handleConnection has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (14 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), error handling 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (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.
LambdaHTTPServer.processRequestAndSendResponse (cognitive 21) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPServer/Lambda+LocalServer.swift:349— LambdaHTTPServer.processRequestAndSendResponse has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ContainerBuildBackend.build (cognitive 20) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/ContainerBuildBackend.swift:44— ContainerBuildBackend.build has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), ternaries 4 (9 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.
Deployer.ensureECRRepositoryExists (cognitive 19) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+ECR.swift:192— Deployer.ensureECRRepositoryExists has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), error handling 2 (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.
Deployer.createFunction (cognitive 19) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+LambdaFunction.swift:63— Deployer.createFunction has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), error handling 1 (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.
BuilderConfiguration.init (cognitive 18) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/Builder.swift:207— BuilderConfiguration.init has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, boolean chains 3. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Deployer.detectFunctionURLUsage (cognitive 18) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+FunctionUrl.swift:97— Deployer.detectFunctionURLUsage has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (14 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Initializer.findEntryPoint (cognitive 18) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-init/Initializer.swift:133— Initializer.findEntryPoint has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (3 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.
Utils.execute (cognitive 17) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/Process.swift:22— Utils.execute has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 3). 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.
HttpServer.handleConnection (cognitive 16) Sources/MockServer/MockHTTPServer.swift:125— HttpServer.handleConnection has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (13 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
TooManyMethods: Deployer Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift:34— TooManyMethods — 43 methods, declared across 7 files: lambda-deploy/Deployer+ECR.swift (11), lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift (10), lambda-deploy/Deployer+LambdaFunction.swift (7), lambda-deploy/Deployer+IAM.swift (6), +3 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 13 over it, 1.43× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. 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.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+LambdaFunction.swift:67— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+LambdaFunction.swift:67-88 | Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+LambdaFunction.swift:195-216 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+LambdaFunction.swift:67` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/FoundationSupport/LambdaManagedRuntime+JSON.swift:129— Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/FoundationSupport/LambdaManagedRuntime+JSON.swift:129-148 | Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/FoundationSupport/LambdaRuntime+JSON.swift:226-245 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/FoundationSupport/LambdaManagedRuntime+JSON.swift:129` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/FoundationSupport/LambdaManagedRuntime+JSON.swift:98— Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/FoundationSupport/LambdaManagedRuntime+JSON.swift:98-116 | Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/FoundationSupport/LambdaRuntime+JSON.swift:195-213 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/FoundationSupport/LambdaManagedRuntime+JSON.swift:98` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+LambdaFunction.swift:146— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+LambdaFunction.swift:146-161 | Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+LambdaFunction.swift:229-243 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+LambdaFunction.swift:146` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) Examples/Tutorial/Sources/main.swift:37— Examples/Tutorial/Sources/main.swift:37-49 | Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/Docs.docc/Resources/code/03-03-07-main.swift:22-35 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/Tutorial/Sources/main.swift` and `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/Docs.docc/Resources/code/03-03-07-main.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 95% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:62— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:62-75 | Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/ZipArchiveBackend.swift:38-51 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:62` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/ZipArchiveBackend.swift:52` calls `appending` and `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:76` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7–10 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:77— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:77-86 | Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/ZipArchiveBackend.swift:54-60 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:77` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/ZipArchiveBackend.swift:52` calls `appending` and `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:75` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/NativeBuildBackend.swift:39— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/NativeBuildBackend.swift:39-47 | Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/StaticLinuxSDKBuildBackend.swift:95-102 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/NativeBuildBackend.swift:39` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/StaticLinuxSDKBuildBackend.swift:104` calls `path` and `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/NativeBuildBackend.swift:47` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/ContainerBuildBackend.swift:137— Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/ContainerBuildBackend.swift:137-144 | Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/NativeBuildBackend.swift:67-74 | Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/StaticLinuxSDKBuildBackend.swift:118-125 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/BuildBackends/ContainerBuildBackend.swift:137` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (28 lines × 3) Examples/ManagedInstances/Sources/Streaming/main.swift:38— Examples/ManagedInstances/Sources/Streaming/main.swift:38-65 | Examples/Streaming+APIGateway/Sources/main.swift:36-63 | Examples/Streaming+FunctionUrl/Sources/main.swift:36-63 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/ManagedInstances/Sources/Streaming/main.swift` and `Examples/Streaming+APIGateway/Sources/main.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/ManagedInstances/Sources/Streaming/main.swift:38` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Examples/S3_AWSSDK/Sources/main.swift:32— Examples/S3_AWSSDK/Sources/main.swift:32-37 | Examples/S3_Soto/Sources/main.swift:33-38 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/S3_AWSSDK/Sources/main.swift:32` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Examples/HelloJSON/Sources/main.swift:32— Examples/HelloJSON/Sources/main.swift:32-41 | Examples/ManagedInstances/Sources/HelloJSON/main.swift:32-41 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/HelloJSON/Sources/main.swift` and `Examples/ManagedInstances/Sources/HelloJSON/main.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 96% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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.
Sync-over-async blocking Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/LambdaClock.swift:171— `sleep` is async and calls sleep — a blocking call inside async code stalls the cooperative pool's thread — one per core — and every task scheduled on it for as long as it runs.
Orphaned file Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/LambdaRequestID.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/Runtime/LambdaRuntime+Codable.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/ControlPlaneRequestEncoder.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/ControlPlaneRequest.swift:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Duplicated predicate Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift:182— `error.code == CocoaError.Code.fileWriteNoPermission && FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: relocatedResourcesDirectory.path())` appears character-identically in 2 files — Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/OCIArchiveBackend.swift, Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/ArchiveBackends/ZipArchiveBackend.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Plugins/AWSLambdaBuilder/Plugin.swift:138— `process.terminationReason == .exit && process.terminationStatus == 0` appears character-identically in 3 files — Plugins/AWSLambdaBuilder/Plugin.swift, Plugins/AWSLambdaDeployer/Plugin.swift, Plugins/AWSLambdaInitializer/Plugin.swift. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 19 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift, Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-build/Builder.swift, Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/LambdaRuntimeClient.swift, Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+ECR.swift, Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-init/Initializer.swift, Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPServer/Lambda+LocalServer+Pool.swift, Plugins/AWSLambdaBuilder/Plugin.swift, Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer+Zip.swift (+11 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (9978 LoC, 136 module-visible types across 21 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.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1
Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 4 of 50 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated, example/demo and scaffolding-template trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 50 of the 79 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/LambdaRequestID.swift, Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/Runtime/LambdaRuntime+Codable.swift, Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/ControlPlaneRequestEncoder.swift, Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/ControlPlaneRequest.swift. Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
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.
No SAST REDACTED:4— No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 8548 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
No dependency-update automation Examples/CDK/infra/package.json:12— `Examples/CDK/infra/package.json` declares packages, and nothing in the repository keeps them current: no Dependabot or Renovate configuration that schedules updates, and no dependency-review gate on pull requests. A pinned dependency stays at the version it was added at until someone notices — including after an advisory is published against it. Add a `.github/dependabot.yml` with one `package-ecosystem` entry per ecosystem the tree uses (or an enabled `renovate.json`), and gate pull requests with `actions/dependency-review-action`.
No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
Dependency hygiene PARTLY measured — SwiftPM pinning read, dependency currency NOT established — This repository's SwiftPM dependencies were read for PINNING discipline: 49 declaration(s) across 25 `Package.swift` manifest(s), against 0 committed pin(s). 24 pinning defect(s) are reported as separate rows below. That is only PART of dependency hygiene, so this dimension is NOT SCORED: whether any of these packages has a newer release is the dependency-CURRENCY question, and no dependency here resolves to a VERSION to ask about — each is pinned to a branch or a revision, which tracks whatever that ref points at and therefore cannot be behind a release. A clean pinning pass is NOT an all-clear for these dependencies, and it is not a finding that they are all USED. Note also what is deliberately NOT charged here: a published LIBRARY correctly commits no `Package.resolved` (SwiftPM ignores a library's resolution when the package is consumed), and a `path:` dependency is a local directory and the tightest possible binding, not a floating one. Known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D30 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
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.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 17 file(s) — `Examples/Streaming+Codable/Sources/LambdaStreaming+Codable.swift`, `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-deploy/Deployer.swift`, `Sources/AWSLambdaPluginHelper/lambda-init/Template.swift`, `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/FoundationSupport/LambdaRuntime+JSON.swift`, `Sources/AWSLambdaRuntime/HTTPClient/ControlPlaneRequest.swift`, … (+12 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a187d7-de17-7419-92d1-c998d6f52c7e · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 10 · Warnings: 96 · Recommendations: 14 · Info: 1 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 29-10-2026 @ 13:27 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.