Public report of benfred/py-spy, published 27 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, 27 October 2026, 01:17 UTC · Survey ID cd_a5003f236a694ce28cab35cd353c1101
benfred/py-spy
Measured 27 October 2026, 01:14 UTC, at code version 2aacce5
No regression since the last survey
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
CAI scoreAdequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Up 1 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A medium codebase: 89,924 lines of product code in 2 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.7 person-years · Weakest lens: Maturity, 53
Findings by how serious they are
34 critical111 serious29 minor
13 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
27 October 2026, 01:14 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 ▸
56of 56 dimensions measured by tools.
145of 174 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 29 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
56dimensions across 5 lenses, read from 89,924 lines of product code in 2 projects.
benfred/py-spy falls short of our standard for a preview release, in part because we found no recorded design decisions and no architecture document or diagram. It scores 62 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, and all 34 of its critical findings are security problems in the build pipeline and in its automatic dependency updates.
Maturity, at 53, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step is recording design decisions, worth about 10 points. Adding test instructions to the README is another step, worth about 4 points. Raising Maturity to 62 would lift the score to about 67.
Twenty-five pipeline tools are referenced by a changeable name, so the build pipeline can be tampered with. Six pipeline steps install packages that can change without warning, and two secrets can leak from the build pipeline. Pinning each tool to an exact version, pinning what the pipeline installs and limiting each secret to its own step would close these risks. Setting a waiting period for automatic updates would fix the automatic dependency update that takes a new release at once.
The product code is 89,924 lines, about €100,000 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.
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 3 findings
These 3 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 13 October 2026, and are gone from this one.
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unsound): RUSTSEC-2026-0190 REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €100,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€34,000 to €170,000, for 564 to 1,788 hours of work, about 0.7 person-years for 1 to 2 engineers
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
Medium: 89,924 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 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 10 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
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.
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 €100,000 to build again, about 0.7 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Maturity, at 53 (Adequate). Maturity is about how well the project explains and looks after itself, which decides whether a new developer, or a new supplier, can take over. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Maturity also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Maturity grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Maturity actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 10 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost
Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 7.1 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 2% to 5% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 1,961 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 7,953 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 0.4 to 2.7 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.
How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change, never less than 2% to 5% and never more than 40% to 60% in all; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.
Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history
What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.
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.
40 modules, with 85 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 8 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.
py_spy.console_viewer uses py_spy.config, so a change to py_spy.config can break py_spy.console_viewer, while a change to py_spy.console_viewer can't break py_spy.config.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.console_viewer uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.console_viewer uses py_spy.console_viewer.os_impl, so a change to py_spy.console_viewer.os_impl can break py_spy.console_viewer, while a change to py_spy.console_viewer can't break py_spy.console_viewer.os_impl.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.console_viewer uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.console_viewer uses py_spy.version, so a change to py_spy.version can break py_spy.console_viewer, while a change to py_spy.console_viewer can't break py_spy.version.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.console_viewer uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
11→26 py_spy.console_viewer uses py_spy.stack_tracepart of a loop✕
Connections
2 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.console_viewer uses a type in py_spy.stack_trace.
py_spy.console_viewer uses py_spy.stack_trace, so a change to py_spy.stack_trace can break py_spy.console_viewer, while a change to py_spy.console_viewer can't break py_spy.stack_trace.
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.
11→34 py_spy.console_viewer uses py_spy.mainpart of a loop✕
Connections
1 pair of types, where a type in py_spy.console_viewer uses a type in py_spy.main.
py_spy.console_viewer uses py_spy.main, so a change to py_spy.main can break py_spy.console_viewer, while a change to py_spy.console_viewer can't break py_spy.main.
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.
py_spy.python_bindings.pyruntime uses py_spy.version, so a change to py_spy.version can break py_spy.python_bindings.pyruntime, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.pyruntime can't break py_spy.version.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.pyruntime uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 uses py_spy.python_interpreters, so a change to py_spy.python_interpreters can break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can't break py_spy.python_interpreters.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_data_access uses py_spy.version, so a change to py_spy.version can break py_spy.python_data_access, while a change to py_spy.python_data_access can't break py_spy.version.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_data_access uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_process_info uses py_spy.binary_parser, so a change to py_spy.binary_parser can break py_spy.python_process_info, while a change to py_spy.python_process_info can't break py_spy.binary_parser.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_process_info uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_process_info uses py_spy.config, so a change to py_spy.config can break py_spy.python_process_info, while a change to py_spy.python_process_info can't break py_spy.config.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_process_info uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_process_info uses py_spy.version, so a change to py_spy.version can break py_spy.python_process_info, while a change to py_spy.python_process_info can't break py_spy.version.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_process_info uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 uses py_spy.python_interpreters, so a change to py_spy.python_interpreters can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can't break py_spy.python_interpreters.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
1 pair of types, where a type in py_spy.speedscope uses a type in py_spy.config.
The types involved
py_spy.speedscope.Stats → py_spy.config.Config
Direction
py_spy.speedscope uses py_spy.config, so a change to py_spy.config can break py_spy.speedscope, while a change to py_spy.speedscope can't break py_spy.config.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.speedscope uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.speedscope uses py_spy.console_viewer, so a change to py_spy.console_viewer can break py_spy.speedscope, while a change to py_spy.speedscope can't break py_spy.console_viewer.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.speedscope uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→26 py_spy.speedscope uses py_spy.stack_tracepart of a loop✕
Connections
1 pair of types, where a type in py_spy.speedscope uses a type in py_spy.stack_trace.
py_spy.speedscope uses py_spy.stack_trace, so a change to py_spy.stack_trace can break py_spy.speedscope, while a change to py_spy.speedscope can't break py_spy.stack_trace.
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.
py_spy.cython uses py_spy.speedscope, so a change to py_spy.speedscope can break py_spy.cython, while a change to py_spy.cython can't break py_spy.speedscope.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.cython uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 uses py_spy.python_interpreters, so a change to py_spy.python_interpreters can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 can't break py_spy.python_interpreters.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
28 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_3_7 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_3_7, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_3_7 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_3_7 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_3_7 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_3_7, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_3_7 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_3_7 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_4_8 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_4_8, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_4_8 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_4_8 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_4_8 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_4_8, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_4_8 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_4_8 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_5_5 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_5_5, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_5_5 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_5_5 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_5_5 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_5_5, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_5_5 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_5_5 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_6_6 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_6_6, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_6_6 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_6_6 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_6_6 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_6_6, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_6_6 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_6_6 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_7_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_7_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_7_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_7_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_7_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_7_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_7_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_7_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.stack_trace uses py_spy.config, so a change to py_spy.config can break py_spy.stack_trace, while a change to py_spy.stack_trace can't break py_spy.config.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.stack_trace uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.stack_trace uses py_spy.speedscope, so a change to py_spy.speedscope can break py_spy.stack_trace, while a change to py_spy.stack_trace can't break py_spy.speedscope.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.stack_trace uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.coredump uses py_spy.config, so a change to py_spy.config can break py_spy.coredump, while a change to py_spy.coredump can't break py_spy.config.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.coredump uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.coredump uses py_spy.coredump.elfcore, so a change to py_spy.coredump.elfcore can break py_spy.coredump, while a change to py_spy.coredump can't break py_spy.coredump.elfcore.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.coredump uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.coredump uses py_spy.version, so a change to py_spy.version can break py_spy.coredump, while a change to py_spy.coredump can't break py_spy.version.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.coredump uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.coredump uses py_spy.python_process_info, so a change to py_spy.python_process_info can break py_spy.coredump, while a change to py_spy.coredump can't break py_spy.python_process_info.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.coredump uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.coredump uses py_spy.stack_trace, so a change to py_spy.stack_trace can break py_spy.coredump, while a change to py_spy.coredump can't break py_spy.stack_trace.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.coredump uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.dump uses py_spy.stack_trace, so a change to py_spy.stack_trace can break py_spy.dump, while a change to py_spy.dump can't break py_spy.stack_trace.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.dump uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.flamegraph uses py_spy.stack_trace, so a change to py_spy.stack_trace can break py_spy.flamegraph, while a change to py_spy.flamegraph can't break py_spy.stack_trace.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.flamegraph uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
29→34 py_spy.flamegraph uses py_spy.mainpart of a loop✕
Connections
1 pair of types, where a type in py_spy.flamegraph uses a type in py_spy.main.
py_spy.flamegraph uses py_spy.main, so a change to py_spy.main can break py_spy.flamegraph, while a change to py_spy.flamegraph can't break py_spy.main.
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.
py_spy.native_stack_trace uses py_spy.binary_parser, so a change to py_spy.binary_parser can break py_spy.native_stack_trace, while a change to py_spy.native_stack_trace can't break py_spy.binary_parser.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.native_stack_trace uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.native_stack_trace uses py_spy.speedscope, so a change to py_spy.speedscope can break py_spy.native_stack_trace, while a change to py_spy.native_stack_trace can't break py_spy.speedscope.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.native_stack_trace uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.native_stack_trace uses py_spy.cython, so a change to py_spy.cython can break py_spy.native_stack_trace, while a change to py_spy.native_stack_trace can't break py_spy.cython.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.native_stack_trace uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
770 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
28 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_8_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_9_5 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
1 pair of types, where a type in py_spy.sampler uses a type in py_spy.version.
The types involved
py_spy.sampler.Sampler → py_spy.version.Version
Direction
py_spy.sampler uses py_spy.version, so a change to py_spy.version can break py_spy.sampler, while a change to py_spy.sampler can't break py_spy.version.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.sampler uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.sampler uses py_spy.stack_trace, so a change to py_spy.stack_trace can break py_spy.sampler, while a change to py_spy.sampler can't break py_spy.stack_trace.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.sampler uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.main uses py_spy.stack_trace, so a change to py_spy.stack_trace can break py_spy.main, while a change to py_spy.main can't break py_spy.stack_trace.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.main uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.main uses py_spy.flamegraph, so a change to py_spy.flamegraph can break py_spy.main, while a change to py_spy.main can't break py_spy.flamegraph.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.main uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
816 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
776 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
35→40 py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0part of a loop✕
Connections
84 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0.
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.
py_spy.python_spy uses py_spy.config, so a change to py_spy.config can break py_spy.python_spy, while a change to py_spy.python_spy can't break py_spy.config.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_spy uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_spy uses py_spy.version, so a change to py_spy.version can break py_spy.python_spy, while a change to py_spy.python_spy can't break py_spy.version.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_spy uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_spy uses py_spy.python_process_info, so a change to py_spy.python_process_info can break py_spy.python_spy, while a change to py_spy.python_spy can't break py_spy.python_process_info.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_spy uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_spy uses py_spy.stack_trace, so a change to py_spy.stack_trace can break py_spy.python_spy, while a change to py_spy.python_spy can't break py_spy.stack_trace.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_spy uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_spy uses py_spy.native_stack_trace, so a change to py_spy.native_stack_trace can break py_spy.python_spy, while a change to py_spy.python_spy can't break py_spy.native_stack_trace.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_spy uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.chrometrace uses py_spy.speedscope, so a change to py_spy.speedscope can break py_spy.chrometrace, while a change to py_spy.chrometrace can't break py_spy.speedscope.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.chrometrace uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.chrometrace uses py_spy.stack_trace, so a change to py_spy.stack_trace can break py_spy.chrometrace, while a change to py_spy.chrometrace can't break py_spy.stack_trace.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.chrometrace uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.chrometrace uses py_spy.main, so a change to py_spy.main can break py_spy.chrometrace, while a change to py_spy.chrometrace can't break py_spy.main.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.chrometrace uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
907 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
776 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
53 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_14_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
38→40 py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0part of a loop✕
Connections
86 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0.
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.
py_spy.python_threading uses py_spy.version, so a change to py_spy.version can break py_spy.python_threading, while a change to py_spy.python_threading can't break py_spy.version.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_threading uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_threading uses py_spy.python_process_info, so a change to py_spy.python_process_info can break py_spy.python_threading, while a change to py_spy.python_threading can't break py_spy.python_process_info.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_threading uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_threading uses py_spy.python_spy, so a change to py_spy.python_spy can break py_spy.python_threading, while a change to py_spy.python_threading can't break py_spy.python_spy.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_threading uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v2_7_15.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
779 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_10_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_11_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
775 pairs of types, where a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses a type in py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_12_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0, so a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0 can break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0, while a change to py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 can't break py_spy.python_bindings.v3_15_0.
Position
Below the diagonal: py_spy.python_bindings.v3_13_0 uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health · 89% · Adequate · gated by D2 ·
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
36
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
9
Medium
Roadmap
First, establish a formal process for recording significant design decisions by creating structured documents in a dedicated folder. Second, update the README to clearly explain how to run the test suite, ensuring new contributors can verify the codebase easily. Third, integrate static analysis and security scanning into the CI pipeline to automatically block regressions before they merge. Finally, implement a manual approval gate for releases to prevent faulty builds from reaching users.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
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.
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 a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
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 — 34
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 — 111
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 — 29
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 13
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. 56 of 56 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 56 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, 145 of 174 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: test source is present (.rs, .py) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`, or `coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`, or `coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
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. This repository declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its crate dependencies. Nothing was read about its Python dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D19 Documentation Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Each ecosystem's manifests (what makes a folder runnable or a published package) need their own proof before D19 judges its units. Until then those folders' READMEs are judged only as documents (boilerplate, structure), never counted as complete.
D21 Naming Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22's deterministic call-shape rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. This says nothing about whether that surface is consistent.
D24 Comment Value — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
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.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Python, Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Python, Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
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.
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.
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 Python, Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
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.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
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.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
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.
10 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was py_spy::binary_parser::parse_binary at 53. 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 PythonCoreDump::get_stack at 16 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/coredump.rs (PythonCoreDump::get_stack at 16). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 3 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with py_spy::binary_parser::parse_binary (cyclomatic 53), py_spy::python_data_access::format_variable (cyclomatic 37), py_spy::record_samples (cyclomatic 35). — 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 3 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 7.0 to about 8.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 30; a cleaner split scores higher.
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.
+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 2 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with py_spy::binary_parser::parse_binary (cognitive 144), py_spy::record_samples (cognitive 71). — 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 2.0 to about 3.5/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; 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 Classes9.6 / 10Stronggated by 8 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 3 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with config.rs, python_process_info.rs, console_viewer.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with binary_parser.rs, main.rs, python_data_access.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with python_process_info.rs, python_interpreters.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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.
34 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 9 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×5src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:69
+ 28 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 5 Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with v3_11_0.rs (3), v3_3_7.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with v3_11_0.rs (2), python_process_info.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Members sharing a duplicated core (13 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with v3_10_0.rs (2). — 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.
2 production modules (Cargo+Python), 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, with abstractness counted on 1 of the 2 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with console_viewer.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
46 test methods: 26 unit, 20 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 42 `#[test]` function(s) across 12 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 1 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test. The Python suite contributes 4 test function(s) across 1 file(s) declaring at least one — every `def test…` in a file pytest or unittest would collect, which is those frameworks' own definition of a case; a parametrize table counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is read from file names and paths only.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.
Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
15 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.
Outdated: chrono · ×15
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d12_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 185 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository. This repository publishes itself under MIT, which is its own choice and is not judged here. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's crate dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
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 python_spy.rs, update_python_test_versions.py, stack_trace.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.
2 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/python_bindings/mod.rs. Counted over 21 of the 37 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
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
18 deducted task-comment markers across 89924 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
TodoComment · ×17generate_bindings.py:16
HackCommentsrc/stack_trace.rs:309
What to do
Resolve the 17 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with native_stack_trace.rs (3), python_data_access.rs (3), generate_bindings.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with stack_trace.rs. — 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 documentation facets pass in full. 1 document(s) read across 1 unit(s).
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
1 of 1 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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).
36 finding(s): 0 critical, 34 high, 2 medium, 0 low. 24 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 3 file(s) — `ci/testdata/cython_test.c`, `src/python_data_access.rs` (line 132), `src/python_process_info.rs` (line 800) — 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
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 6 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 24 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 (24 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.
Resolve the 2 Medium advisory (unsound) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
1 of 21 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/chrometrace.rs. Counted over 21 of the 37 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Orphaned files with no living knowledge
Orphaned filesrc/chrometrace.rs:1
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
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.
Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.
Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.
Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
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.
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.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record 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.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
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 · Observability5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
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 cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) (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 14581 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Dependabot is configured but does not watch `cargo`, `pip` — add those `package-ecosystem` entries to REDACTED so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.
What to do
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.
Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.
Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. 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?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a `for` loop leaves the `RefCell` it is walking alone — safe Rust rejects a body that changes the collection its loop borrows at compile time, except through interior mutability: a `RefCell` borrowed in the loop's header stays borrowed until the loop ends, so a `borrow_mut()` of it inside the body panics with `already borrowed: BorrowMutError` and the remaining elements are never seen. Whether a `for` loop leaves the `dict`, `set` or `deque` it is walking alone — CPython's iterators over those check that the collection has not changed size since the loop began, so a body that removes from (or empties) the very collection the loop is walking makes the next step raise `RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration` and the remaining items are never seen.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
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?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
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.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not evidenced — 1 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.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 62 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 Python 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; Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No function in this Python code is served by a threaded web framework (a Flask, Bottle or FastAPI route, a Django or Pyramid view), so no module is shared between request threads. Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — this repository starts no server another machine can reach (no actix-web HttpServer, axum::serve, Rocket launch, warp::serve, poem or salvo Server, tonic Server::builder, hyper or tiny_http server outside examples and tests, none bound beyond loopback). Access control is therefore N/A here — a crate is authorized by the application that serves it, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
D10 Test Quality — ~1064 lines of test source are present (.rs, .py) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
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.
D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; Python, Rust not measured.
D22 Internal API Consistency — API consistency is measured on C# only; the exposed Rust surface was not measured.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — D24 reads C# and Visual Basic comments only — this repository's production source is .py, .rs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.rs), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
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 included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (34 value object(s))
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
M4 Documentation accuracy — Not applicable: the 1 current-state document(s) make no claim of a kind M4 checks.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Python, Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `#[bench]`, criterion's `bench_function`/`bench_with_input`, `#[divan::bench]` or `#[library_benchmark]` in any `.rs` file, or criterion, divan, iai or a `[[bench]]` target in a Cargo.toml, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface: 37 Rust file(s) were read for weak hashes and ciphers, key material fixed in the source, disabled TLS certificate validation and obsolete TLS versions, and none was found. This repository serves no HTTP of its own — no HTTP-server crate (actix-web, axum, Rocket, warp, poem, tide, salvo, tonic, a hyper server, …) among its Cargo manifests' run-time dependencies, and no server started in its production source — so HTTPS enforcement, HSTS, cookie flags and input validation are N/A here, as they are for a C# library or worker. If this codebase starts serving HTTP, the dimension reactivates automatically.
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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
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
X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Python and Rust were read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Python request takes no token: asyncio cancels the task and trio or anyio the scope that made it, from outside the call, and requests, httpx, aiohttp and gRPC take a timeout, not a cancellation; a Rust request takes no token: a future is cancelled by dropping it, from outside the call (select!, a timeout, an aborted task), and reqwest, hyper and tonic take none
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
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 — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's Rust was read, and it logs through none: the `log` crate's macros take one finished message (as log4net does in C#; its `kv` values are an opt-in its backends mostly drop), `println!`/`eprintln!` are not loggers, or it makes no log call outside its tests and examples at all. Calls through `tracing` (`tracing::info!`, or `info!` imported from it) would be judged.
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.
TodoComment generate_bindings.py:16— # TODO: probably easier to use pyenv for this? — 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 generate_bindings.py:233— # todo: this probably should be a separate script — 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 src/console_viewer.rs:47— // TODO: there isn't a non-blocking version of stdin, so this will capture the — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/console_viewer.rs:147— // TODO: subsort ? — 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 src/coredump.rs:163— // TODO: one issue here is the bss addr spans multiple mmap segments - so checking the 'end' — 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 src/coredump.rs:439— // TODO: has registers next for thread next - don't need them right now, but if we want to do — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/native_stack_trace.rs:22— // TODO: right now on windows if we don't hold on the process handle unwinding will fail — 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 src/native_stack_trace.rs:65— // TODO: merging the two stack together could happen outside of thread lock — 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 src/native_stack_trace.rs:195— // TODO: can this by merged into translate_frame? — 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 src/python_data_access.rs:192— // TODO: MANAGED_DICT_OFFSET is -3 if GIL isn't disabled, -1 otherwise (in py3.13+) — 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 src/python_data_access.rs:465— // TODO: support getting dictionaries from older versions of python — 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 src/python_data_access.rs:566— // TODO: get better at Rust and figure out a better solution — 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 src/python_interpreters.rs:700— // TODO: this shares some similarities with python 3.11, we should refactor to a common macro — 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 src/python_process_info.rs:120— // TODO: consistent types? u64 -> usize? for map.start etc — 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 src/python_process_info.rs:270— // TODO: bss addr offsets returned from parsing binary are wrong — 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 src/speedscope.rs:181— // TODO: filename? — 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 src/stack_trace.rs:123— // TODO: just return frames here? everything else probably should be returned out of scope — 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.
py_spy::binary_parser::parse_binary (cognitive 144) src/binary_parser.rs:63— py_spy::binary_parser::parse_binary has cognitive complexity 144 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 32 (114 pts), loops 7 (16 pts), boolean chains 8, match/switch 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 94). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
py_spy::record_samples (cognitive 71) src/main.rs:158— py_spy::record_samples has cognitive complexity 71 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (55 pts), loops 4 (10 pts), match/switch 4, boolean chains 2 (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.
py_spy::python_data_access::format_variable (cognitive 51) src/python_data_access.rs:385— py_spy::python_data_access::format_variable has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (39 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
py_spy::python_process_info::get_python_version (cognitive 36) src/python_process_info.rs:325— py_spy::python_process_info::get_python_version has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (27 pts), match/switch 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 19). 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.
py_spy::python_threading::thread_names_from_interpreter (cognitive 35) src/python_threading.rs:20— py_spy::python_threading::thread_names_from_interpreter has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (20 pts), loops 4 (15 pts) (nesting depth added 26). 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.
py_spy::stack_trace::get_stack_trace (cognitive 23) src/stack_trace.rs:113— py_spy::stack_trace::get_stack_trace has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
py_spy::dump::write_trace (cognitive 22) src/dump.rs:93— py_spy::dump::write_trace has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
py_spy::pyspy_main (cognitive 21) src/main.rs:393— py_spy::pyspy_main has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
py_spy::python_process_info::scan_memory_for_python_interpreter (cognitive 21) src/python_process_info.rs:886— py_spy::python_process_info::scan_memory_for_python_interpreter has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (9 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). 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.
py_spy::cython::demangle (cognitive 16) src/cython.rs:136— py_spy::cython::demangle has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (10 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×5
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:69— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:69-74 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:69-74 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:71-76 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:71-76 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:71-76 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:101— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:101-117 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:101-117 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:105-121 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:105-121 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:105-121 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:135— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:135-149 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:135-149 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:139-153 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:139-153 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:139-153 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:34— src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:34-44 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:34-44 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:34-44 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:34-44 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:34-44 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:47— src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:47-61 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:47-61 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:47-61 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:47-61 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:47-61 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
py_spy::binary_parser::parse_binary (cyclomatic 53) src/binary_parser.rs:63— py_spy::binary_parser::parse_binary has cyclomatic complexity 53 (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.
py_spy::python_data_access::format_variable (cyclomatic 37) src/python_data_access.rs:385— py_spy::python_data_access::format_variable has cyclomatic complexity 37 (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.
py_spy::record_samples (cyclomatic 35) src/main.rs:158— py_spy::record_samples has cyclomatic complexity 35 (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.
py_spy::python_process_info::get_python_version (cyclomatic 20) src/python_process_info.rs:325— py_spy::python_process_info::get_python_version has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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.
Hotspot: src/python_spy.rs src/python_spy.rs:191— src/python_spy.rs changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 23 in PythonSpy::_get_stack_traces at line 191. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-26..2026-10-24, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-26 09:25:40 -07:00' --until='2026-10-24 09:25:40 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/python_spy.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: ci/update_python_test_versions.py ci/update_python_test_versions.py:17— ci/update_python_test_versions.py changed 4 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in update_python_test_versions.get_github_python_versions at line 17. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 3 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-26..2026-10-24, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-26 09:25:40 -07:00' --until='2026-10-24 09:25:40 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- ci/update_python_test_versions.py`: 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: src/stack_trace.rs src/stack_trace.rs:113— src/stack_trace.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in py_spy::stack_trace::get_stack_trace at line 113. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 1 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-26..2026-10-24, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-26 09:25:40 -07:00' --until='2026-10-24 09:25:40 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/stack_trace.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
MethodTooLong: Config.from_args src/config.rs:153— MethodTooLong — from_args runs 278 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 178 over it, 2.78× 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: PythonProcessInfo.new src/python_process_info.rs:49— MethodTooLong — new runs 149 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.49× 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: ConsoleViewer.display src/console_viewer.rs:135— MethodTooLong — display runs 140 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 40 over it, 1.40× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: py_spy::binary_parser::parse_binary src/binary_parser.rs:63— FunctionTooLong — py_spy::binary_parser::parse_binary runs 177 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 77 over it, 1.77× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: py_spy::record_samples src/main.rs:158— FunctionTooLong — py_spy::record_samples runs 136 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 36 over it, 1.36× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: py_spy::python_data_access::format_variable src/python_data_access.rs:385— FunctionTooLong — py_spy::python_data_access::format_variable runs 113 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 13 over it, 1.13× 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 (5 lines × 2) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:49— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:49-53 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:49-53 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 163 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:77— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:77-81 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:77-81 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 163 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/python_process_info.rs:841— src/python_process_info.rs:841-845 | src/python_process_info.rs:898-902 — 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.
PythonSpy::_get_stack_traces (cognitive 51) src/python_spy.rs:191— PythonSpy::_get_stack_traces has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (40 pts), loops 4 (9 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 26). 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.
PythonSpy::_get_os_thread_id (cognitive 22) src/python_spy.rs:425— PythonSpy::_get_os_thread_id has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
NativeStack::merge_native_stack (cognitive 32) src/native_stack_trace.rs:68— NativeStack::merge_native_stack has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (20 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
NativeStack::translate_native_frame (cognitive 16) src/native_stack_trace.rs:259— NativeStack::translate_native_frame has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
ConsoleViewer::display (cognitive 26) src/console_viewer.rs:135— ConsoleViewer::display has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (20 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 1). 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.
ConsoleViewer::increment (cognitive 16) src/console_viewer.rs:83— ConsoleViewer::increment has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DictIterator::from_managed_dict (cognitive 16) src/python_data_access.rs:181— DictIterator::from_managed_dict has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 3 (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, 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.
DictIterator::next (cognitive 16) src/python_data_access.rs:314— DictIterator::next has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (8 pts), if/else 3 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
FileTooLong: src/python_process_info.rs src/python_process_info.rs— FileTooLong — 762 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 262 over it, 1.52× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/python_interpreters.rs src/python_interpreters.rs— FileTooLong — 622 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 122 over it, 1.24× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium advisory (unsound) · ×2
REDACTED
REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (13 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
Members sharing a duplicated core (13 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:62— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:62-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:83-99 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:83-99 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:63-79 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:87-103 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:87-103 | src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:64-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:64-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:64-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:64-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:64-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:87-103 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:62-78 — These 13 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 13 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 13 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (13 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:80— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:80-94 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:119-133 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:119-133 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:81-95 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:123-137 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:123-137 | src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:81-91 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:81-91 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:81-91 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:81-91 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:81-91 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:123-137 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:80-94 — These 13 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 13 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 13 times.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/binary_parser.rs:226— src/binary_parser.rs:226-240 | src/binary_parser.rs:248-262 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/python_bindings/mod.rs:99— src/python_bindings/mod.rs:99-113 | src/python_bindings/mod.rs:117-131 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 5) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:105— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:105-117 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:105-117 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:109-121 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:109-121 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:109-121 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 163 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 5) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:55— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:55-67 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:55-67 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:57-69 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:57-69 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:57-69 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 163 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/coredump.rs:136— src/coredump.rs:136-141 | src/python_process_info.rs:72-77 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/python_data_access.rs:144— src/python_data_access.rs:144-149 | src/python_data_access.rs:152-157 — 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.
Config::from_args (cyclomatic 25) src/config.rs:153— Config::from_args has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
ConsoleViewer::display (cyclomatic 24) src/console_viewer.rs:135— ConsoleViewer::display has cyclomatic complexity 24 (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.
PythonSpy::_get_stack_traces (cyclomatic 23) src/python_spy.rs:191— PythonSpy::_get_stack_traces has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Sampler::new_subprocess_sampler (cyclomatic 22) src/sampler.rs:105— Sampler::new_subprocess_sampler has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
PythonProcessInfo::new (cyclomatic 20) src/python_process_info.rs:49— PythonProcessInfo::new has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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.
NativeStack::merge_native_stack (cyclomatic 18) src/native_stack_trace.rs:68— NativeStack::merge_native_stack has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
HackComment src/stack_trace.rs:309— // hack: handle things like None, True, False, small integer constants etc on Python 3.14 — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
Sampler::new_subprocess_sampler (cognitive 44) src/sampler.rs:105— Sampler::new_subprocess_sampler has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), loops 8 (14 pts), match/switch 5 (14 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 24). 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.
PythonProcessInfo::new (cognitive 26) src/python_process_info.rs:49— PythonProcessInfo::new has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Config::from_args (cognitive 25) src/config.rs:153— Config::from_args has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), match/switch 5 (6 pts), boolean chains 5 (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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:688— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:688-712 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:796-819 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:985-1004 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1874-1909 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:827-851 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:1469-1509 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1133-1156 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1989-2024 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1139-1162 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:2010-2045 | src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:578-602 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:578-602 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:592-616 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:592-616 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:630-654 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:801-824 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:676-700 — These 17 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 17 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 17 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/python_bindings/mod.rs:69— src/python_bindings/mod.rs:69-95 | src/python_bindings/mod.rs:134-160 | src/python_bindings/mod.rs:207-230 | src/python_bindings/mod.rs:233-262 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Duplicated block (26–27 lines × 2) src/python_process_info.rs:858— src/python_process_info.rs:858-883 | src/python_process_info.rs:934-960 — 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 (22 lines × 2) src/python_bindings/mod.rs:70— src/python_bindings/mod.rs:70-91 | src/python_bindings/mod.rs:135-156 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 4) src/python_bindings/mod.rs:79— src/python_bindings/mod.rs:79-95 | src/python_bindings/mod.rs:144-160 | src/python_bindings/mod.rs:213-230 | src/python_bindings/mod.rs:245-262 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 5) src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:48— src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:48-61 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:48-61 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:48-61 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:48-61 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:48-61 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:47— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:47-60 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:48-61 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:47-60 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 94 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 8) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:66— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:66-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:87-99 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:87-99 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:67-79 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:91-103 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:91-103 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:91-103 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:66-78 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (3–12 lines × 13) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:63— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:63-65 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:84-86 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:84-86 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:64-66 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:88-90 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:88-90 | src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:67-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:67-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:67-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:67-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:67-78 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:88-90 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:63-65 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:2118— src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:2118-2129 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:12159-12170 — 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 × 8) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:84— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:84-94 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:123-133 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:123-133 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:85-95 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:127-137 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:127-137 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:127-137 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:84-94 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:139— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:139-149 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:139-149 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:143-153 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:143-153 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:143-153 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 163 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:33— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:33-43 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:34-44 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:33-43 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 94 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 17) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:690— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:690-699 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:798-806 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:987-995 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1876-1884 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:829-838 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:1471-1480 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1135-1143 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1991-1999 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1141-1149 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:2012-2020 | src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:580-589 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:580-589 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:594-603 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:594-603 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:632-641 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:803-811 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:678-687 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:35— src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:35-44 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:35-44 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:35-44 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:35-44 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:35-44 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 17) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:704— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:704-712 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:811-819 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:996-1004 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1901-1909 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:843-851 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:1501-1509 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1148-1156 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:2016-2024 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1154-1162 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:2037-2045 | src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:594-602 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:594-602 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:608-616 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:608-616 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:646-654 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:816-824 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:692-700 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (3–8 lines × 13) src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:81— src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs:81-83 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:120-122 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:120-122 | src/python_bindings/v3_13_0.rs:82-84 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:124-126 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:124-126 | src/python_bindings/v3_3_7.rs:84-91 | src/python_bindings/v3_4_8.rs:84-91 | src/python_bindings/v3_5_5.rs:84-91 | src/python_bindings/v3_6_6.rs:84-91 | src/python_bindings/v3_7_0.rs:84-91 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:124-126 | src/python_bindings/v3_9_5.rs:81-83 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_10_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/python_data_access.rs:476— src/python_data_access.rs:476-483 | src/python_data_access.rs:491-498 — 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 (7 lines × 3) src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:79— src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:79-85 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:79-85 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:79-85 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 166 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:50— src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:50-55 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:50-55 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:50-55 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 166 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 5) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:70— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:70-74 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:70-74 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:72-76 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:72-76 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:72-76 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 163 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 5) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:31— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:31-39 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:31-39 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:31-39 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:31-39 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:31-39 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 163 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:41— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:41-46 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:41-46 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:41-46 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:41-46 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:41-46 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 163 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 48) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:636— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:636-644 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:669-677 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:702-710 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:735-743 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:768-776 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:859-867 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:892-900 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:925-933 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:958-966 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1612-1620 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1645-1653 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1678-1686 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1711-1719 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1744-1752 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1777-1785 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1810-1818 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1843-1851 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:973-981 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1006-1014 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1039-1047 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1072-1080 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1105-1113 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1727-1735 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1760-1768 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1793-1801 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1826-1834 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1859-1867 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1892-1900 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1925-1933 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1958-1966 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:979-987 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1012-1020 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1045-1053 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1078-1086 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1111-1119 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1748-1756 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1781-1789 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1814-1822 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1847-1855 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1880-1888 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1913-1921 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1946-1954 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1979-1987 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:641-649 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:674-682 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:707-715 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:740-748 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:773-781 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 163 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 48) src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:646— src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:646-656 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:679-689 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:712-722 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:745-755 | src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs:778-788 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:869-879 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:902-912 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:935-945 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:968-978 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1622-1632 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1655-1665 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1688-1698 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1721-1731 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1754-1764 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1787-1797 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1820-1830 | src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs:1853-1863 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:983-993 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1016-1026 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1049-1059 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1082-1092 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1115-1125 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1737-1747 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1770-1780 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1803-1813 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1836-1846 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1869-1879 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1902-1912 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1935-1945 | src/python_bindings/v3_14_0.rs:1968-1978 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:989-999 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1022-1032 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1055-1065 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1088-1098 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1121-1131 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1758-1768 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1791-1801 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1824-1834 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1857-1867 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1890-1900 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1923-1933 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1956-1966 | src/python_bindings/v3_15_0.rs:1989-1999 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:651-661 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:684-694 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:717-727 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:750-760 | src/python_bindings/v3_8_0.rs:783-793 — before extracting anything, compare `src/python_bindings/v3_11_0.rs` and `src/python_bindings/v3_12_0.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 18 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 163 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Low cohesion: ConsoleConfig (LCOM4 4) src/console_viewer.rs:525— ConsoleConfig's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 2 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/python_bindings/mod.rs, src/python_threading.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (89924 LoC, 4683 module-visible types across 4 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 — 1 of 21 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; 21 of the 37 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: src/chrometrace.rs. 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.
Orphaned file src/chrometrace.rs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
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.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
Logging is not universal — Only 1/2 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `.`.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) (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 14581 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 release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.
Outdated: chrono — `chrono` is locked at 0.4.44 but 0.4.45 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.4.44"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p chrono` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: clap — `clap` is locked at 4.6.1 but 4.6.7 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"4.6.1"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p clap` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: clap_complete — `clap_complete` is locked at 4.6.2 but 4.6.11 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"4.6.1"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p clap_complete` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: console — `console` is locked at 0.16.3 but 0.16.6 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.16"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p console` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: env_logger — `env_logger` is locked at 0.11.10 but 0.11.11 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.11"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p env_logger` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: indicatif — `indicatif` is locked at 0.18.4 but 0.18.6 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.18"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p indicatif` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: inferno — `inferno` is locked at 0.12.6 but 0.12.8 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.12.6"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p inferno` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: lazy_static — `lazy_static` is locked at 1.5.0 but 1.5.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.4.0"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p lazy_static` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: libc — `libc` is locked at 0.2.190 but 0.2.191 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.2"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p libc` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: log — `log` is locked at 0.4.29 but 0.4.34 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.4"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p log` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: memmap2 — `memmap2` is locked at 0.9.10 but 0.9.12 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.9.4"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p memmap2` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: regex — `regex` is locked at 1.12.3 but 1.13.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `">=1.6.0"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p regex` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: serde — `serde` is locked at 1.0.228 but 1.0.229 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p serde` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: serde_derive — `serde_derive` is locked at 1.0.228 but 1.0.229 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p serde_derive` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: serde_json — `serde_json` is locked at 1.0.149 but 1.0.154 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0"` requirement declared in Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p serde_json` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
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 01a17aec-53cf-7f41-bfba-1e706603243d · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 34 · Warnings: 111 · Recommendations: 14 · Info: 15 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 27-10-2026 @ 01:14 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.