android-sms-gateway — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

The system holds an adequate overall standing of 55%, reflecting a codebase that is structurally sound but operationally exposed. While the underlying logic is clean and well-architected, the business faces significant risk due to weak security postures and immature operational practices. This is not a fragile system, but it is one that requires immediate attention to prevent costly incidents and ensure reliable delivery.

The asset is small, comprising roughly 18,000 lines of production code with a rebuild cost of approximately €22,000. This low barrier to change means that remediation efforts will yield high returns without requiring massive investment. The value tied up here is manageable, allowing leadership to prioritize high-impact fixes that secure the domain logic and improve operational readiness without disrupting ongoing development cycles.

The primary risk lies in security and operational exposure. With a security score of 50% and production readiness at 60%, the system lacks the safeguards needed for safe, observable operation. This gap invites potential outages and security breaches, which could damage customer trust and incur significant remediation costs. The lack of measured performance and event-driven capabilities further obscures the system’s ability to scale or handle failure gracefully, leaving the business vulnerable to unexpected downtime.

A second critical theme is the unprotected domain model. The codebase suffers from anemic types and primitive identifiers, which means business rules are not enforced at the source. This design flaw invites data corruption and logic errors, as invariants are not guarded by the domain itself. Fixing this encapsulation issue is the highest-leverage move, as it resolves multiple findings simultaneously and strengthens the core business logic against future defects.

Despite these risks, the system boasts strong code health and architecture scores, indicating that the foundational code is maintainable and well-structured. The team should focus first on securing the domain model by implementing guarded constructors and strongly-typed identifiers. This single action will significantly reduce defect rates and improve system reliability, providing the most immediate value to the business.

Code Health 91% ★ Exemplary Architecture 90% ★ Exemplary Maturity 59% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 60% Adequate · gated by P3 Security 50% Adequate · gated by D29, D36 Domain Modelling 51% Adequate · gated by DM2, DM4, DM11

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

Security 50% · 46% weightDomain Modelling 51% · 25% weightMaturity 59% · 14% weightReadiness 60% · 8% weightArchitecture 90% · 4% weightCode Health 91% · 2% weight

Raise Security 50 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 55 → ~58.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (87+)

87 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-08-06) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D1 · PduHeaders.setOctet (cyclomatic 66) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java
D1 · PduComposer.appendHeader (cyclomatic 37) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java
D1 · MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 33) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/MessagesListFragment.kt
D1 · WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 28) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/settings/WebhookQueueListFragment.kt
D1 · PduComposer.makeMessageBody (cyclomatic 28) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java
D1 · IncomingMessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 25) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt
D1 · MessagesSettings.import (cyclomatic 23) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt
D1 · InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes (cyclomatic 22) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt
D1 · MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes (cyclomatic 20) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt
D1 · MessagesService.processStateIntent (cyclomatic 16) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt
D2 · PduComposer.makeMessageBody (cognitive 61) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java
D2 · PduHeaders.setOctet (cognitive 56) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java
D2 · WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 36) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/settings/WebhookQueueListFragment.kt
D2 · PduComposer.appendHeader (cognitive 36) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java
D2 · MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 30) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/MessagesListFragment.kt
D2 · MessagesService.processStateIntent (cognitive 27) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt
D2 · IncomingMessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 24) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt
D2 · InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes (cognitive 21) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt
D2 · MessagesSettings.import (cognitive 20) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt
D2 · MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes (cognitive 17) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt
D3 · MethodTooLong: MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt
D3 · ClassTooLong: PduComposer app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java
D3 · ClassTooLong: MessagesService app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt
D3 · MethodTooLong: InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt
D3 · MethodTooLong: PduComposer.appendHeader app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java
D3 · MethodTooLong: PduComposer.makeMessageBody app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java
D3 · FileTooLong: messages/MessagesService.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt
D3 · FileTooLong: aosp/PduComposer.java app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java
D3 · MethodTooLong: HomeFragment.onViewCreated app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/HomeFragment.kt
D3 · MethodTooLong: PduHeaders.setOctet app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java
D3 · ClassTooLong: PduHeaders app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java
D4 · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/workers/SettingsUpdateWorker.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (18–20 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/incoming/vm/IncomingMessagesListViewModel.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MessagesReceiver.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt
D15 · Hotspot: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt
D15 · Hotspot: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt
D15 · Hotspot: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/parsers/MMSParser.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/parsers/MMSParser.kt
D15 · Hotspot: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt
D15 · Hotspot: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/GatewayService.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/GatewayService.kt
D15 · Hotspot: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt
D17 · TodoComment app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt
D17 · FixmeComment app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/SendReq.java
D17 · TodoComment app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/EncodedStringValue.java
D17 · TodoComment app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/EncodedStringValue.java
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D35 · Change coupling: AppDatabase.kt ↔ MessagesService.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/AppDatabase.kt
D35 · Change coupling: WebService.kt ↔ EventsReceiver.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/WebService.kt
D35 · Change coupling: PullMessagesWorker.kt ↔ MessagesService.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/workers/PullMessagesWorker.kt
D36 · REDACTED
DM11 · Constructible in an invalid state: Message app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/Message.kt
DM11 · Constructible in an invalid state: MessageRecipient app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageRecipient.kt
DM11 · Constructible in an invalid state: MessageState app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageState.kt
DM11 · Constructible in an invalid state: RecipientState app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/RecipientState.kt
DM11 · Constructible in an invalid state: Token app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/Token.kt
DM11 · Constructible in an invalid state: InboxUploadEntity app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/inbox/InboxUploadEntity.kt
DM11 · Constructible in an invalid state: IncomingMessage app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/incoming/db/IncomingMessage.kt
DM11 · Constructible in an invalid state: LogEntry app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/logs/db/LogEntry.kt
DM11 · Constructible in an invalid state: WebHook app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/webhooks/db/WebHook.kt
DM11 · Constructible in an invalid state: WebhookQueueEntity app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/webhooks/db/WebhookQueueEntity.kt

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €7,400–€37,000

Cost to rebuild	€7,400–€37,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (123–391 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.8× (at 55% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€22,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 50% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — domain model × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) charged to Static Analysis (SAST) — the other 16 are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which charges them once.

+3.1 pts · Low effort · Static Analysis (SAST)

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

+2.6 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

Give each aggregate one way in that can refuse — a guarded constructor, value-object parameters that validate themselves, or a private constructor behind a factory that returns a failure.

+4.8 pts · REDACTED effort · Constructible invalid state

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Small asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 50%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.2 person-years rebuild (18,260 LoC) · weakest lens: Security 50%

→ Direct remediation budget at Security first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Root cause: an un-encapsulated domain · REDACTED · Root cause

11 findings across public setters, anemic types and primitive ids share one root cause — the domain layer doesn't protect its own invariants. Fixing the encapsulation pattern resolves them together, rather than chasing each finding.

Evidence: DM5 setters: 0 · DM4 anemic: 7 · DM2 primitive ids: 4

→ Address encapsulation as one pattern (private setters + behaviour + strongly-typed ids), not 100 separate findings.

Highest-leverage move · REDACTED · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Give each aggregate one way in that can refuse — a guarded constructor, value-object parameters that validate themselves, or a private constructor behind a factory that returns a failure. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Give each aggregate one way in that can refuse — a guarded constructor, value-object parameters that validate themselves, or a private constructor behind a factory that returns a failure.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

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

192 modules, 279 dependencies. 3 dependency cycles across 19 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 152 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 modules.events	2 modules.health.domain	3 modules.incoming.db	4 modules.logs.db	5 modules.notifications	6 modules.receiver.data	7 domain	8 modules.connection	9 modules.logs	10 domain.MessageContent	11 modules.localserver.domain	12 modules.webhooks.domain	13 data.entities	14 helpers	15 modules.gateway.GatewayApi	16 modules.mms	17 modules.webhooks.db	18 data.dao	19 modules.incoming	20 modules.messages.data	21 ui.adapters	22 modules.localserver.auth	23 modules.localserver.domain.messages	24 modules.messages	25 modules.gateway	26 modules.health	27 modules.messages.vm	29 modules.localserver	30 modules.webhooks	31 modules.settings	34 modules.encryption	35 modules.receiver	36 modules.gateway.inbox	38 modules.orchestrator
1 modules.events
2 modules.health.domain
3 modules.incoming.db
4 modules.logs.db
5 modules.notifications
6 modules.receiver.data
7 domain		3
8 modules.connection		1
9 modules.logs				2																										3
10 domain.MessageContent							3
11 modules.localserver.domain			1				1
12 modules.webhooks.domain							1
13 data.entities							7			3
14 helpers											1
15 modules.gateway.GatewayApi							3					1
16 modules.mms									1	1
17 modules.webhooks.db							2					2																	1
18 data.dao							2						8
19 modules.incoming			2			1			1							1														3
20 modules.messages.data							4						1
21 ui.adapters													1				1
22 modules.localserver.auth									1									1										1
23 modules.localserver.domain.messages							1													1
24 modules.messages	1	1					3		1				3			1		2		6										3	1
25 modules.gateway	3					1			1						18									1						3			1
26 modules.health		1						1																1
27 modules.messages.vm							1						2							1				2
28 modules.gateway.services					1				1					1											1
29 modules.localserver	1				1																	1				1				1
30 modules.webhooks	2				1		1		1			2					1								1			1		4
31 modules.settings					1				1										1					1	1				1		1
32 modules.webhooks.workers					3				2								2												5
33 ui.settings																	3				2				2				2
34 modules.encryption																														2
35 modules.receiver	2		1			1	1		4			1							1						1				1	2
36 modules.gateway.inbox					1	1			2						1										1						1
37 modules.localserver.routes									2							1			1			1	1	1				3	1	1		2
38 modules.orchestrator	2								1					1					1					1	1			1	1			1
39 data			1	1													2	2															1
40 ui	1							1					1	1							4				2		2	2						1

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

At a glance — Code Health · 91% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Kotlin Cyclomatic Complexity 7.6 D2 · Kotlin Cognitive Complexity 7.7 D3 · Kotlin God Classes 8.5 D4 · Kotlin Code Duplication 9.8 D17 · Kotlin Explicit Debt 10.0

At a glance — Architecture · 90% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D35 · Kotlin Change Coupling 9.8 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.5

At a glance — Maturity · 59% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Kotlin Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.5 D19 · Kotlin Documentation Quality 7.0 D21 · Kotlin Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Kotlin Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.7

The Ugly

D20 · Kotlin ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 60% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

The Good

D13 · Kotlin Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 50% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Kotlin Secrets (history) 10.0

The Ugly

D29 · Kotlin Static Analysis (SAST) 2.5 D36 · Kotlin Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 51% · Adequate · gated by DM2, DM4, DM11 ·

The Good

DM12 · Repo Ambient inputs in the domain 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0 DM9 · Repo Scattered domain decisions 10.0

The Ugly

DM11 · Repo Constructible invalid state 3.0 DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 3.0 DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 3.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	26	REDACTED / Critical

Roadmap

First, eliminate invalid aggregate states by enforcing guarded constructors or factories, and complete the migration to strongly-typed IDs to prevent argument errors. Next, shift business rules into entities to enforce invariants at the source rather than relying on anemic services. Finally, resolve the seven high-severity static analysis findings and document key architectural decisions in a centralized location to ensure clarity and traceability.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) charged to Static Analysis (SAST) — the other 16 are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which charges them once.	+3.1 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+2.6 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Give each aggregate one way in that can refuse — a guarded constructor, value-object parameters that validate themselves, or a private constructor behind a factory that returns a failure.	+4.8 pts	REDACTED	Constructible invalid state
Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.	+4.8 pts	REDACTED	Strongly-typed ids
Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.	+4.8 pts	REDACTED	Rich vs anemic model
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3).	+2.0 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.	+1.4 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.	+1.4 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 26 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 4% slop · 61% mixed · 35% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.9	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: PduComposer.appendHeader (cyclomatic 37)
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: PduHeaders.setOctet (cyclomatic 66)
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: IncomingMessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 25)
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes (cyclomatic 22)
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/EncodedStringValue.java	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes (cyclomatic 20)
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/MessagesListFragment.kt	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 33)
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/settings/WebhookQueueListFragment.kt	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 28)
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: MessagesSettings.import (cyclomatic 23)
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/SendReq.java	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/HomeFragment.kt	8.5	Near-clean	God Classes: MethodTooLong: HomeFragment.onViewCreated
app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/workers/SettingsUpdateWorker.kt	8.5	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (21 lines × 2)

How the grades work

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

Critical — 23

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 — 75

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 — 12

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

Could not be resolved — 45

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. 29 of 32 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 32 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D13D15D17D19D20D21D28D29D34D35D36AX10DM11DM12DM2DM4DM5DM6DM8DM9M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6

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, 101 of 110 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0d9a2-aaaa-77c3-96cc-e46bce0aaa5c.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D4 Code Duplication — 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. The 9 duplicated block group(s) on this row were found in the languages this pass could tokenize, and they do NOT cover all of this repository's production source: .java (3,808 lines, 21% of production source) went unread, because no language model this pass could load exposed a clone-unit token stream for those file kinds. Duplication in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the count above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code is free of duplication.
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 (.kt) 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 (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) 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 (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.kt) and this repository declares a JVM test suite (repository root, Gradle), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Dependency Hygiene ran out of its 5-minute budget before it had finished, so what it reports here is a floor rather than a complete count. The rows above are real and stand; what is not known is how many more there are. This is a limit of the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D14 License Compliance — evaluation did not complete — License Compliance not included (check did not complete) — excluded from the score.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (3 contributor(s) across 419 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 100% of the history; the other 2 hold 0% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
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 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: D22 has no public-API collector for any other ecosystem, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `app/src/main/assets/api/swagger-ui-standalone-preset.js` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, 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 (go.mod, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AX3 Project dependency cycles — 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 which project references which — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX4 Dependency direction — 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 direction each project reference points — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX8 Test isolation — 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 which projects are test projects, and what they reference — facts that live in .csproj references. This repository either commits no MSBuild project at all (its C# may still have been parsed as syntax-only projects, which carry no references between them) or its projects failed to load, so there was no graph to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — 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. Arm one resolves each comparison operand to the domain member it judges, and that binding exists only in a Roslyn compilation, which this run did not load. Arm two ran over the neutral model because this repository's frontend declares whether each construction is produced or passed. A rule decided in two places would not appear above.
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — 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. The frontend declares that it computes whether a construction is produced or passed, yet 258 of 342 constructions arrived without the answer. Arm two skipped them; it did not clear them.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations (.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.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

10 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was PduHeaders.setOctet at 66. A further 2 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 MessagesService.resultToErrorMessage at 59 — 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 methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/parsers/MMSParser.kt (MMSParser.parseMNotificationInd at 29). 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.

PduHeaders.setOctet (cyclomatic 66)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java:358

PduComposer.appendHeader (cyclomatic 37)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:544

MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 33)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/MessagesListFragment.kt:37

WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 28)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/settings/WebhookQueueListFragment.kt:39

PduComposer.makeMessageBody (cyclomatic 28)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:919

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 PduHeaders.setOctet (cyclomatic 66) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with PduHeaders.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 PduComposer.appendHeader (cyclomatic 37) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with PduComposer.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 33) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with MessagesListFragment.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

10 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was PduComposer.makeMessageBody at 61.

PduComposer.makeMessageBody (cognitive 61)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:919

PduHeaders.setOctet (cognitive 56)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java:358

WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 36)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/settings/WebhookQueueListFragment.kt:39

PduComposer.appendHeader (cognitive 36)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:544

MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 30)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/MessagesListFragment.kt:37

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 PduComposer.makeMessageBody (cognitive 61) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with PduComposer.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 PduHeaders.setOctet (cognitive 56) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with PduHeaders.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 36) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with WebhookQueueListFragment.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

11 god class(es) detected.

MethodTooLong: MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes · ×6app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt:54

ClassTooLong: PduComposer · ×3app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:31

FileTooLong: messages/MessagesService.kt · ×2app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt

What to do

Resolve the 6 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with PduComposer.java (2), MessagesRoutes.kt, InboxRoutes.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with PduComposer.java, MessagesService.kt, PduHeaders.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with MessagesService.kt, PduComposer.java. — 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.8 / 10Stronggated by 9 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

9 duplicated block group(s) detected. Measured on part of this repository only: .java (21% of production source) was not exposed to the token comparison, so duplication there is unmeasured and is not in this count.

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt:45

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt:86

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/workers/SettingsUpdateWorker.kt:44

Duplicated block (18–20 lines × 2)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt:108

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt:38

What to do

Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with MmsContentObserver.kt (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt, IncomingMessagesListViewModel.kt, MessagesReceiver.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with SettingsUpdateWorker.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.5 / 10Stronggated by 6 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt (9×59=531); app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt (4×20=80); app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/parsers/MMSParser.kt (2×29=58)

Hotspot: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt · ×6app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt:762

What to do

Resolve the 6 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with MessagesService.kt, MessagesRoutes.kt, MMSParser.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

4 deducted task-comment markers across 18260 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 · ×3app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt:51

FixmeCommentapp/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/SendReq.java:31

What to do

Resolve the 3 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EncodedStringValue.java (2), MessagesService.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SendReq.java. — 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The README is a single cohesive document with an excellent project logo and table of contents covering About The Project, Features, Ideal For, Built With, Installation, Build Variants, Prerequisites (Permissions), Installation from APK, Getting Started, Local Server, Cloud Server, Webhooks, Supported Events, Setting Up Webhooks, Roadmap, Contributing, License, Contact, and Links. It also includes a dedicated MMS document covering sending/receiving MMS with detailed requirements, setup, an example, webhook endpoints, inbox API, cloud mode, limits, carrier behavior, and troubleshooting. The two architecture/Docs markdown files (not shown) would complete the set.

Documentation: no architecture or design documentationREADME.md

What to do

Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

26 finding(s): 0 critical, 23 high, 3 medium, 0 low. 16 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 2 file(s) — `app/src/main/assets/api/swagger-ui-standalone-preset.js`, `gradlew` (line 177) — 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. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 2 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) charged to Static Analysis (SAST) — the other 16 are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which charges them once. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 issue-level, 7 of them charged here).
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 81 of the 249 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.8 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: AppDatabase.kt↔MessagesService.kt 64%; WebService.kt↔EventsReceiver.kt 58%; PullMessagesWorker.kt↔MessagesService.kt 50%

Change coupling: AppDatabase.kt ↔ MessagesService.kt · ×3app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/AppDatabase.kt

What to do

Resolve the 3 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with AppDatabase.kt, WebService.kt, PullMessagesWorker.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM11 · Constructible invalid state3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether an aggregate can be constructed in a state its own rules forbid — a public constructor that takes a raw primitive, stores it, and validates nothing, with no factory beside it. A constructor taking only value objects is not counted: each parameter has already validated itself.

Method: Neutral surface (DDD-gated): each non-abstract entity/aggregate checked for a PUBLIC constructor taking at least one RAW PRIMITIVE parameter whose body contains no guard token (throw / Guard. / Ensure. / ArgumentException / CheckRule), on a type that also offers no static Create/Of/From/New factory. A constructor taking only value objects is never charged -- measured: 64 of 87 unguarded public constructors on the C# corpus take value objects only, so ignoring parameter types would be 73% false positives. One finding per entity. Deterministic.

`Message`'s public constructor takes `id` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `Message` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/Message.kt:55
`MessageRecipient`'s public constructor takes `messageId`, `phoneNumber`, `error` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `MessageRecipient` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageRecipient.kt:12
`MessageState`'s public constructor takes `messageId` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `MessageState` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageState.kt:17
`RecipientState`'s public constructor takes `messageId`, `phoneNumber` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `RecipientState` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/RecipientState.kt:17
`Token`'s public constructor takes `id`, `tokenUse`, `parentJti` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `Token` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/Token.kt:16
`InboxUploadEntity`'s public constructor takes `messageId`, `type`, `senderEncrypted`, `recipientEncrypted`, … as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `InboxUploadEntity` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/inbox/InboxUploadEntity.kt:14
`IncomingMessage`'s public constructor takes `id`, `sender`, `recipient`, `contentPreview` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `IncomingMessage` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/incoming/db/IncomingMessage.kt:21
`LogEntry`'s public constructor takes `module`, `message` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `LogEntry` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/logs/db/LogEntry.kt:9
`WebHook`'s public constructor takes `id`, `url` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `WebHook` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/webhooks/db/WebHook.kt:9
`WebhookQueueEntity`'s public constructor takes `id`, `url`, `payload`, `lastError` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `WebhookQueueEntity` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/webhooks/db/WebhookQueueEntity.kt:20

What to do

Give each aggregate one way in that can refuse — a guarded constructor, value-object parameters that validate themselves, or a private constructor behind a factory that returns a failure.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain types receive the time and randomness their rules depend on, rather than reading the process clock or a global random source directly — an ambient read makes the rule it feeds untestable at the instant that matters and lets two reads inside one operation disagree.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated, C#/VB only): domain-layer types scanned for ambient reads — DateTime/DateTimeOffset.Now/UtcNow/Today, Random.Shared, new Random(), Stopwatch.GetTimestamp — resolved against the semantic model, with a comment/string-stripped token fallback only where resolution fails. Body reads are scored; field/property initialisers are surfaced unscored. Apply/When folds excluded (ES1 owns them). Deterministic, symbol-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — How much of the domain uses strongly-typed ids vs raw Guid/string/int — adoption curve, not all-or-nothing.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): strongly-typed id adoption on domain entities/events; raw Guid/int/string ids counted versus wrapped types. An id wrapper is recognised by VALUE SEMANTICS, not by being a struct — a record struct, a record class (`record ApartmentId(Guid Value)`) or a class declared by a typed-id base (`class MemberId : TypedIdValueBase`) all count, while a plain mutable class (reference equality) and a verb-phrase query record (`GetCustomerById`) do not. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Coverage: Population: id-like members by *Id/*Key NAME suffix; strongly-typed-ID shape then checked semantically — non-suffixed identifiers are not seen.

`MessageRecipient.messageId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageRecipient.kt:13
`MessageState.messageId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageState.kt:18
`RecipientState.messageId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/RecipientState.kt:18
`IncomingMessage.subscriptionId` is a raw `Int` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int`, in whatever form your language spells that. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/incoming/db/IncomingMessage.kt:27

What to do

Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

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

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

`Message` is an aggregate/entity with 18 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/Message.kt:26
`MessageRecipient` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageRecipient.kt:12
`MessageState` is an aggregate/entity with 3 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageState.kt:17
`RecipientState` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/RecipientState.kt:17
`Token` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/Token.kt:16
`IncomingMessage` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/incoming/db/IncomingMessage.kt:21
`WebHook` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/webhooks/db/WebHook.kt:9

What to do

Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state — private/init-only setters, and collections handed out as read-only views rather than the mutable backing collection — instead of exposing writable state that bypasses invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether one domain rule is decided — or one measurement produced — in more than one place, rather than living on the type that owns it.

Method: Neutral body surface plus Roslyn (DDD-gated), two arms. DECISION (Roslyn only): a predicate over a domain type's members judged in two or more types, where none of those decisions live on the owning type — operands of comparisons and relational property patterns only, so a member merely passed as an argument is not judged. DERIVATION: a plain all-numeric carrier of ≥2 members, with no base type and exactly one constructor, CONSTRUCTED as the result of a method (returned or assigned, never inline as an argument) in two or more types other than its own — the same measurement produced twice, which centralising the judgement does not fix. DERIVATION runs on every language whose frontend declares the produced-or-passed fact per construction (Roslyn and the Java sidecar today); a target with only the derivation arm carries an engine gap naming the decision arm as not assessed, and a frontend that declares nothing keeps the dimension not measured rather than clean. Single-member rules, test code and generated code are out of population for both. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
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 significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (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 10045 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: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	91%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Architecture	90%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	59%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	60%	Adequate — gated by P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	50%	Adequate — gated by D29, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	51%	Adequate — gated by DM2, DM4, DM11	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.

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

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

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 90 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 — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~1158 lines of test source are present (.kt) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — no .kt test runner
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency Hygiene incomplete (time budget)
D14 License Compliance — License Compliance not included (check did not complete)
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.java, .kt) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 1 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART class graph, and this repository's production source is .java, .kt, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
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
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.kt) 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 its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Aggregate boundaries — no aggregates detected — aggregate-boundary check not applicable
DM10 One transaction, one aggregate — no repository writes detected — no operation to judge against the one-aggregate rule
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) 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 — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 23 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×23

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

Serious — 75 finding(s)

DM11 · Constructible invalid state · Constructible in an invalid state · ×10

Constructible in an invalid state: Message app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/Message.kt:55 — `Message`'s public constructor takes `id` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `Message` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: MessageRecipient app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageRecipient.kt:12 — `MessageRecipient`'s public constructor takes `messageId`, `phoneNumber`, `error` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `MessageRecipient` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: MessageState app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageState.kt:17 — `MessageState`'s public constructor takes `messageId` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `MessageState` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: RecipientState app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/RecipientState.kt:17 — `RecipientState`'s public constructor takes `messageId`, `phoneNumber` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `RecipientState` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: Token app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/Token.kt:16 — `Token`'s public constructor takes `id`, `tokenUse`, `parentJti` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `Token` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: InboxUploadEntity app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/inbox/InboxUploadEntity.kt:14 — `InboxUploadEntity`'s public constructor takes `messageId`, `type`, `senderEncrypted`, `recipientEncrypted`, … as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `InboxUploadEntity` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: IncomingMessage app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/incoming/db/IncomingMessage.kt:21 — `IncomingMessage`'s public constructor takes `id`, `sender`, `recipient`, `contentPreview` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `IncomingMessage` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: LogEntry app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/logs/db/LogEntry.kt:9 — `LogEntry`'s public constructor takes `module`, `message` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `LogEntry` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: WebHook app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/webhooks/db/WebHook.kt:9 — `WebHook`'s public constructor takes `id`, `url` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `WebHook` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: WebhookQueueEntity app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/webhooks/db/WebhookQueueEntity.kt:20 — `WebhookQueueEntity`'s public constructor takes `id`, `url`, `payload`, `lastError` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `WebhookQueueEntity` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model · Anemic entity · ×7

Anemic entity: Message app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/Message.kt:26 — `Message` is an aggregate/entity with 18 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: MessageRecipient app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageRecipient.kt:12 — `MessageRecipient` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: MessageState app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageState.kt:17 — `MessageState` is an aggregate/entity with 3 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: RecipientState app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/RecipientState.kt:17 — `RecipientState` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Token app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/Token.kt:16 — `Token` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: IncomingMessage app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/incoming/db/IncomingMessage.kt:21 — `IncomingMessage` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: WebHook app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/webhooks/db/WebHook.kt:9 — `WebHook` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×6

Hotspot: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt:762 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt changed 9 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 59 in MessagesService.resultToErrorMessage at line 762. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 7 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 07:23:09 +07:00' --until='2026-09-25 07:23:09 +07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt`: 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: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt:54 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt changed 4 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 20 in MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes at line 54. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 07:23:09 +07:00' --until='2026-09-25 07:23:09 +07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt`: 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: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/parsers/MMSParser.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/parsers/MMSParser.kt:71 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/parsers/MMSParser.kt changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 29 in MMSParser.parseMNotificationInd at line 71. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 07:23:09 +07:00' --until='2026-09-25 07:23:09 +07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/parsers/MMSParser.kt`: 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: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt:188 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 23 in MessagesSettings.import at line 188. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 07:23:09 +07:00' --until='2026-09-25 07:23:09 +07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt`: 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: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/GatewayService.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/GatewayService.kt:246 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/GatewayService.kt changed 3 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 15 in GatewayService.processMessage at line 246. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 07:23:09 +07:00' --until='2026-09-25 07:23:09 +07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/GatewayService.kt`: 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: app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt:39 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 22 in InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes at line 39. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 07:23:09 +07:00' --until='2026-09-25 07:23:09 +07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×6

MethodTooLong: MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt:54 — MethodTooLong — messagesRoutes runs 149 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) 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: InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt:39 — MethodTooLong — inboxRoutes runs 125 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 25 over it, 1.25× 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: PduComposer.appendHeader app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:544 — MethodTooLong — appendHeader runs 120 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 20 over it, 1.20× 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: PduComposer.makeMessageBody app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:919 — MethodTooLong — makeMessageBody runs 115 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.15× 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: HomeFragment.onViewCreated app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/HomeFragment.kt:132 — MethodTooLong — onViewCreated runs 105 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 5 over it, 1.05× 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: PduHeaders.setOctet app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java:358 — MethodTooLong — setOctet runs 102 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.02× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×3

TodoComment app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt:51 — // todo: use MessagesRepository — 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 app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/EncodedStringValue.java:53 — // TODO: CharSet needs to be validated against MIBEnum. — 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 app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/EncodedStringValue.java:154 — // TODO: CharSet needs to be validated against MIBEnum. — 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.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×3

ClassTooLong: PduComposer app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:31 — ClassTooLong — 529 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 24 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 129 over it, 1.32× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: MessagesService app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt:48 — ClassTooLong — 504 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 23 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 104 over it, 1.26× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: PduHeaders app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java:25 — ClassTooLong — 402 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 12 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.01× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×3

Change coupling: AppDatabase.kt ↔ MessagesService.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/AppDatabase.kt — `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/AppDatabase.kt` and `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt` change together 64% of the time (16 of the 25 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 16 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `3f82b13a` [messages] add scheduling; `e38c6560` [webhooks] add parts count to the `sms:sent` webhook payload; `9a8d3dea` [localserver] get messages history — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: WebService.kt ↔ EventsReceiver.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/WebService.kt — `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/WebService.kt` and `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/receivers/EventsReceiver.kt` change together 58% of the time (7 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `960b37fd` Fixed: show only 50 last messages (at that commit the file was still `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/services/WebService.kt`); `6a1e466e` Added: messages list basic components (at that commit the file was still `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/services/WebService.kt`); `49e263e6` Added: get messages from server and send message status (at that commit the file was still `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/services/WebService.kt`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: PullMessagesWorker.kt ↔ MessagesService.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/workers/PullMessagesWorker.kt — `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/workers/PullMessagesWorker.kt` and `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `53470165` [gateway] send message state by `Worker`; `e8b439f6` Fixed: code cleanup (at that commit the file was still `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/PullMessagesWorker.kt`); `dd1b3734` Added: random delats between messages (at that commit the file was still `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/PullMessagesWorker.kt`) — run `git show` on any of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt:45 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt:45-56 | app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/SmsContentObserver.kt:60-74 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt` and `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/SmsContentObserver.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt:45` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt:119 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt:119-130 | app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/SmsContentObserver.kt:147-158 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt` and `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/SmsContentObserver.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt:119` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt:84 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt:84-95 | app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/SmsContentObserver.kt:102-113 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt` and `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/SmsContentObserver.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsContentObserver.kt:84` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt:86 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt:86-92 | app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/MessagesListFragment.kt:98-104 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt:86` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/incoming/vm/IncomingMessagesListViewModel.kt:38 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/incoming/vm/IncomingMessagesListViewModel.kt:38-44 | app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/vm/MessagesListViewModel.kt:40-46 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MessagesReceiver.kt:96 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MessagesReceiver.kt:96-102 | app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/receiver/MmsReceiver.kt:110-116 — 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.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2

FileTooLong: messages/MessagesService.kt app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt — FileTooLong — 549 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 92% of them inside a single declaration: MessagesService (48-825). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.10× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: aosp/PduComposer.java app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java — FileTooLong — 539 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 98% of them inside a single declaration: PduComposer (31-1216). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 39 over it, 1.08× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PduHeaders.setOctet (cyclomatic 66) · ×1

PduHeaders.setOctet (cyclomatic 66) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java:358 — PduHeaders.setOctet has cyclomatic complexity 66 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PduComposer.appendHeader (cyclomatic 37) · ×1

PduComposer.appendHeader (cyclomatic 37) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:544 — PduComposer.appendHeader 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 33) · ×1

MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 33) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/MessagesListFragment.kt:37 — MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 28) · ×1

WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 28) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/settings/WebhookQueueListFragment.kt:39 — WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PduComposer.makeMessageBody (cyclomatic 28) · ×1

PduComposer.makeMessageBody (cyclomatic 28) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:919 — PduComposer.makeMessageBody has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · IncomingMessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 25) · ×1

IncomingMessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 25) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt:34 — IncomingMessagesListFragment.onViewCreated has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MessagesSettings.import (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

MessagesSettings.import (cyclomatic 23) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt:188 — MessagesSettings.import has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes (cyclomatic 22) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt:39 — InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes (cyclomatic 20) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt:54 — MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MessagesService.processStateIntent (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

MessagesService.processStateIntent (cyclomatic 16) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt:222 — MessagesService.processStateIntent has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: MessagesService.resultToErrorMessage (cyclomatic 59) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×1

FixmeComment app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/SendReq.java:31 — // FIXME: Content-type must be decided according to whether — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PduComposer.makeMessageBody (cognitive 61) · ×1

PduComposer.makeMessageBody (cognitive 61) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:919 — PduComposer.makeMessageBody has cognitive complexity 61 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (40 pts), error handling 5 (14 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 29). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PduHeaders.setOctet (cognitive 56) · ×1

PduHeaders.setOctet (cognitive 56) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduHeaders.java:358 — PduHeaders.setOctet has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (33 pts), boolean chains 22, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 14). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 36) · ×1

WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 36) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/settings/WebhookQueueListFragment.kt:39 — WebhookQueueListFragment.onViewCreated has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (32 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PduComposer.appendHeader (cognitive 36) · ×1

PduComposer.appendHeader (cognitive 36) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/mms/pdu/aosp/PduComposer.java:544 — PduComposer.appendHeader has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (32 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 15). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 30) · ×1

MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 30) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/MessagesListFragment.kt:37 — MessagesListFragment.onViewCreated has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (26 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MessagesService.processStateIntent (cognitive 27) · ×1

MessagesService.processStateIntent (cognitive 27) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesService.kt:222 — MessagesService.processStateIntent has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), match/switch 5 (12 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IncomingMessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 24) · ×1

IncomingMessagesListFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 24) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt:34 — IncomingMessagesListFragment.onViewCreated has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (20 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes (cognitive 21) · ×1

InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes (cognitive 21) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt:39 — InboxRoutes.inboxRoutes has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, error handling 9, boolean chains 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MessagesSettings.import (cognitive 20) · ×1

MessagesSettings.import (cognitive 20) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/messages/MessagesSettings.kt:188 — MessagesSettings.import has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes (cognitive 17) · ×1

MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes (cognitive 17) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt:54 — MessagesRoutes.messagesRoutes has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8, error handling 7, boolean chains 1, match/switch 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.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/workers/SettingsUpdateWorker.kt:44 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/workers/SettingsUpdateWorker.kt:44-64 | app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/workers/WebhooksUpdateWorker.kt:53-73 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/gateway/workers/SettingsUpdateWorker.kt:44` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18–20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18–20 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt:108 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt:108-125 | app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/MessagesRoutes.kt:81-100 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/localserver/routes/InboxRoutes.kt:108` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt:38 — app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt:38-46 | app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/MessagesListFragment.kt:41-49 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/ui/IncomingMessagesListFragment.kt:38` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

Minor — 12 finding(s)

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids · Primitive id on a domain type · ×4

Primitive id on a domain type: MessageRecipient.messageId app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageRecipient.kt:13 — `MessageRecipient.messageId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that.
Primitive id on a domain type: MessageState.messageId app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/MessageState.kt:18 — `MessageState.messageId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that.
Primitive id on a domain type: RecipientState.messageId app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/data/entities/RecipientState.kt:18 — `RecipientState.messageId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that.
Primitive id on a domain type: IncomingMessage.subscriptionId app/src/main/java/me/capcom/smsgateway/modules/incoming/db/IncomingMessage.kt:27 — `IncomingMessage.subscriptionId` is a raw `Int` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Int`, in whatever form your language spells that.

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×1

Documentation: no architecture or design documentation README.md — The README does not reference any architecture or design documentation, despite having two markdown docs (not shown). Link to an architecture document covering the gateway's message-flow graph, rate limits, and cloud/server deployment.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

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.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (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 10045 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.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-61f16a7fd3504a238ba9c783a14ec061/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-61f16a7fd3504a238ba9c783a14ec061/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	26	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)	—	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 1 file(s) — `app/src/main/assets/api/swagger-ui-standalone-preset.js` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover them at all.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)	—	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).	0	—

Run 01a0d9a2-aaaa-77c3-96cc-e46bce0aaa5c · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Capcom6/android-Sms-Gateway

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 91% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 90% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 59% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 60% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 50% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 51% · Adequate · gated by DM2, DM4, DM11 ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts