crossbeam — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

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

The system holds a strong overall standing of 74%, indicating a healthy asset with solid foundations. However, this confidence masks a critical vulnerability in how knowledge is retained and transferred. While the code is clean and the architecture is robust, the organization lacks the institutional memory to sustain these gains over time. This creates a fragile dependency on specific individuals rather than a resilient, self-documenting process.

The value at stake is moderate, with a rebuild cost of approximately €60,000 and a timeline of less than half a person-year. This is not a massive legacy monolith, but a significant component where efficiency matters. The codebase is highly structured, with no boilerplate or straight-line logic, suggesting a mature engineering culture. Yet, the low maturity score reveals that this quality is not fully captured in documentation or operational practices, leaving the business exposed to delays and errors if key personnel leave.

The primary risk is knowledge concentration. With a maturity score of 61%, the system relies heavily on tribal knowledge rather than clear, accessible records. This means new team members will struggle to understand design choices, leading to slower onboarding and higher defect rates. The absence of recorded decisions means that context is lost, forcing engineers to guess or re-invent solutions. This directly impacts delivery speed and increases the cost of change, as every modification requires re-learning the rationale behind existing structures.

Conversely, the system’s architectural integrity is a genuine strength. The architecture score of 99% indicates that changes are unlikely to cause unintended ripple effects, ensuring reliability and reducing the risk of catastrophic outages. The code health is also excellent at 89%, meaning the code is maintainable and easy to modify. These factors provide a stable platform for future development, provided the knowledge gap is addressed.

To maximize leverage, focus first on recording significant decisions. Implementing a simple, consistent process for documenting design choices will immediately reduce bus factor risk and accelerate onboarding. This low-effort, high-impact action protects the substantial investment in the current architecture. Without this, the system’s strengths remain underutilized, and the business remains vulnerable to operational disruptions.

Code Health 89% ★ Exemplary Architecture 99% ★ Exemplary Maturity 61% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 87% ★ Exemplary Security 81% Adequate · gated by D36

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

Maturity 61% · 47% weightSecurity 81% · 26% weightReadiness 87% · 14% weightCode Health 89% · 8% weightArchitecture 99% · 4% weight

Raise Maturity 61 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 74 → ~78.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (4+)

4 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-12) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D5 · Off the main sequence: crossbeam-utils
D22 · Inconsistent naming for blocking vs non-blocking operations. `try_send` is non-blocking, while `send` is blocking. However, the timeout variants are named `send_timeout` and `send_deadline` rather than `send_with_timeout` or similar, creating a slight lexical inconsistency between the base blocking call (`send`) and its timed variants. More critically, `Receiver` uses `recv` (blocking) and `try_recv` (non-blocking), which is consistent with `Sender`, but the timeout methods on `Receiver` are `recv_timeout`/`recv_deadline`. While consistent within the channel module, the mix of `send`/`recv` (blocking) and `try_send`/`try_recv` (non-blocking) is standard, but the lack of a unified `send_with_timeout` pattern makes the API surface feel slightly fragmented between 'try' and 'timeout' naming conventions.
D22 · Inconsistent verb usage for state management operations. `register`/`unregister` and `watch`/`unwatch` are used for managing operations, but `try_select` and `accept` are used for execution/consumption. The distinction between `register` and `watch` is not immediately obvious from the names alone without deep documentation, as both seem to associate an operation with the handle. Similarly, `accept` consumes a token, but `unregister` removes an operation. The verbs `register`, `watch`, `accept`, `unregister`, `unwatch` create a slightly confusing set of actions for what is essentially a lifecycle of an async operation.
D22 · Inconsistent return types for equivalent operations in SkipList vs SkipMap. `SkipList.get_or_insert` returns `RefEntry` (which requires a guard to release), while `SkipMap.get_or_insert` returns `Entry` (which does not require a guard for release, as implied by the lack of guard parameter in `Entry.remove()` in SkipMap). This inconsistency forces users to handle lifetimes and guards differently for seemingly identical logical operations depending on whether they use the base `SkipList` or the typed `SkipMap`.

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 — €20,000–€100,000

Cost to rebuild	€20,000–€100,000 (0.2–0.6 person-years (332–1,053 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	1.1× (at 74% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.4 person-years of build effort (about ~€60,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 61% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 1.1× 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.

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).

+12.3 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.

+5.6 pts · Low effort · Bus Factor

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 5.0/10.

+10.8 pts · Medium effort · Documentation Quality

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Medium asset (~0.4 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 61%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.4 person-years rebuild (25,037 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 61%

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

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: 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). The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ 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).

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

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

60 modules, 95 dependencies. 2 dependency cycles across 13 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 20 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 →	3 crossbeam_channel.utils	4 crossbeam_epoch.deferred	5 crossbeam_epoch.epoch	6 crossbeam_epoch.primitive.cell	7 crossbeam_epoch.sealed	8 crossbeam_utils.atomic.seq_lock	9 crossbeam_utils.cache_padded	10 crossbeam_channel.waker	12 crossbeam_epoch.sync.queue	13 crossbeam_utils.atomic.atomic_cell	17 crossbeam_utils.thread.unix	18 crossbeam_channel.flavors.array	19 crossbeam_channel.flavors.list	20 crossbeam_channel.flavors.zero	21 crossbeam_channel.select	22 crossbeam_channel.context	23 crossbeam_channel.channel	28 crossbeam_utils.sync.wait_group	29 crossbeam_epoch.sync.list	33 crossbeam_epoch.internal	34 crossbeam_epoch.collector	35 crossbeam_epoch.guard	36 crossbeam_epoch.atomic	38 crossbeam_skiplist.base	39 crossbeam_skiplist.map
1 benchmarks.atomicring
2 benchmarks.atomicringqueue
3 crossbeam_channel.utils
4 crossbeam_epoch.deferred
5 crossbeam_epoch.epoch
6 crossbeam_epoch.primitive.cell
7 crossbeam_epoch.sealed
8 crossbeam_utils.atomic.seq_lock
9 crossbeam_utils.cache_padded
10 crossbeam_channel.waker															3	3
11 crossbeam_deque.deque				1			4
12 crossbeam_epoch.sync.queue							1															1	2
13 crossbeam_utils.atomic.atomic_cell				1		1
14 crossbeam_utils.atomic.seq_lock_wide						2
15 crossbeam_utils.sync.once_lock				1
16 crossbeam_utils.sync.sharded_lock				2
17 crossbeam_utils.thread.unix					1
18 crossbeam_channel.flavors.array				1			1	1							7	2	2
19 crossbeam_channel.flavors.list				1			1	1				2			7	2	2
20 crossbeam_channel.flavors.zero				1				1				2			7	3	2
21 crossbeam_channel.select												1	1	1		1	6
22 crossbeam_channel.context															1
23 crossbeam_channel.channel															7	2
24 crossbeam_channel.flavors.at															3	1
25 crossbeam_channel.flavors.never															3	1
26 crossbeam_channel.flavors.tick										1					3	1
27 crossbeam_utils.sync.parker	1															1
28 crossbeam_utils.sync.wait_group	1															1
29 crossbeam_epoch.sync.list																	1					4	5
30 crossbeam_queue.array_queue				1			1										1
31 crossbeam_queue.seg_queue				1			1										1
32 crossbeam_utils.thread					1						1							1
33 crossbeam_epoch.internal		2	3	1			2	1	1										2		2	2
34 crossbeam_epoch.collector																				1		1
35 crossbeam_epoch.guard																					1		1
36 crossbeam_epoch.atomic					3																	2
37 crossbeam_epoch.default																					1	1
38 crossbeam_skiplist.base							1	1	1				1				2				1	8	6
39 crossbeam_skiplist.map								3									3							5
40 crossbeam_skiplist.set								2									4							2	1

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

At a glance — Code Health · 89% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 8.6 D3 · Rust God Classes 9.4 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.0 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.6

The Bad

D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 6.6

At a glance — Architecture · 99% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 8.9 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 9.0 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 61% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 6.4 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 7.5 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 9.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 5.0

The Ugly

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 87% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 8.9 D11 · Rust Test Reliability 10.0 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 8.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

At a glance — Security · 81% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0

The Ugly

D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5

Roadmap

First, establish a centralized repository for architecture decisions by documenting key context, choices, and consequences in a standard directory structure. Next, enhance the overall quality of existing documentation to ensure clarity and completeness for all users. Finally, mitigate operational risks by addressing bus factor vulnerabilities, removing orphaned files with no active knowledge, and generating a software bill of materials to verify supply chain provenance.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
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).	+12.3 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.	+5.6 pts	Low	Bus Factor
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 5.0/10.	+10.8 pts	Medium	Documentation Quality
Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.	+3.9 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.	+1.6 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.	+1.6 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.	+1.6 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 Inverted test pyramid finding(s) in Test Distribution.	+0.6 pts	Low	Test Distribution

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 29 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 0% slop · 52% mixed · 48% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: HackComment
crossbeam-channel/src/select_macro.rs	6.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-channel/tests/select.rs	6.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-channel/tests/golang.rs	6.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-channel/src/channel.rs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: HackComment
crossbeam-epoch/src/atomic.rs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
crossbeam-queue/src/array_queue.rs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-channel/tests/tick.rs	6.9	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-epoch/src/internal.rs	6.9	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-channel/benchmarks/plot.py	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-epoch/src/epoch.rs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-channel/tests/after.rs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-channel/tests/select_macro.rs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crossbeam-epoch/src/lib.rs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment

How the grades work

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

Critical — 0

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 — 147

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 — 9

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

Could not be resolved — 51

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 33 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 33 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D13D15D16D17D19D21D22D26D28D29D34D35D36D44AX10AX3AX4AX9M1M2M3M4P1P3P6

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, 143 of 156 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 01a0ec3b-1c7d-7465-9ade-c82a28722f0d.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 9 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, and no committed Cargo.lock resolves them to versions, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — this repository declares Cargo manifests but commits no Cargo.lock, so the set of crates it actually ships is not resolvable from the checkout: its declarations carry version RANGES, and grading whichever release happens to be newest today would be a verdict about a dependency graph this repository has not pinned. Commit the lock and this dimension grades the closure against crates.io. NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: this dimension asserts nothing about its licensing in either direction.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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. Osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 'osv-scanner' exited 128 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the repository.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 'osv-scanner' exited 128 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check 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.
AX2 Stateful singletons — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check 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.
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.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — 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. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, or a Dockerfile. None was found, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P10 Library API & versioning — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads NuGet packaging and C# public API only, and no .NET project was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
PF1 Benchmark discipline — 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.
PF2 Allocation 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. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 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.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check 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.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check 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.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
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.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D22, 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 Complexity8.6 / 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 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

7 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was crossbeam_channel::select::run_select at 35.

crossbeam_channel::select::run_select (cyclomatic 35) · ×2crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:176

Stealer::steal_batch_with_limit (cyclomatic 20) · ×2crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:767

Injector::steal_batch_with_limit (cyclomatic 16) · ×2crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1622

SkipList::insert_internal (cyclomatic 18)crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1013

What to do

Resolve the 2 crossbeam_channel finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with select.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Stealer finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with deque.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Injector finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with deque.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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 Complexity6.6 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

22 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was crossbeam_channel::select::run_select at 73.

Channel::start_recv (cognitive 27) · ×7crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:334

SkipList::insert_internal (cognitive 41) · ×3crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1013

crossbeam_channel::select::run_select (cognitive 73) · ×2crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:176

Stealer::steal_batch_with_limit (cognitive 40) · ×2crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:767

Injector::steal_batch_with_limit (cognitive 29) · ×2crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1622

+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 7 Channel finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with array.rs (4), list.rs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 SkipList finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with base.rs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 crossbeam_channel finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with select.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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 Classes9.4 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

4 god class(es) detected.

FileTooLong: src/base.rs · ×2crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs

TooManyMethods: AtomicCellcrossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:33

ClassTooLong: SkipListcrossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:468

What to do

Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with base.rs, deque.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with atomic_cell.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with base.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.0 / 10Stronggated by 57 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 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

53 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 4 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×6crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:301

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×4crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:451

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:207

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×2crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:181

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2crossbeam-channel/src/channel.rs:1592

+ 38 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with atomic_cell.rs (4), list.rs, atomic.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with base.rs (2), array.rs, deque.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with list.rs, deque.rs, array.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

7 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 6 of the 7 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: crossbeam-utils

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 68 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

653 test methods: 47 unit, 606 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 653 `#[test]` function(s) across 41 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 31 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

Inverted test pyramid

What to do

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

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Rust (repository root, 41 test files): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.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 Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

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

20 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs. Counted over 56 of the 73 production source files in this repository: 16 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 1 have no attributable history left to measure.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.6 / 10Stronggated by 53 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

53 deducted task-comment markers across 25037 LoC (0.2/KLoC) → score 9.6. 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 · ×43crossbeam-channel/benchmarks/plot.py:119

FixmeComment · ×5crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:1206

HackComment · ×5crossbeam-channel/src/channel.rs:1574

What to do

Resolve the 43 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with base.rs (9), select_macro.rs (7), select.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (43 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with lib.rs (2), select.rs, default.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with base.rs (2), channel.rs, atomic_cell.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 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 QualityAdequate◐ 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 Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The repository's root README gives a high-quality overview of the crossbeam crate and its many concurrent-programming tools, with an outline listing Atomics, Data structures, Memory management, Thread synchronization, Utilities, Crates, Usage, Compatibility, Contributing, RFCs, Learning resources, Conduct, License, and Contribution. Each tool is described with usage links to docs.rs pages plus a brief description of the feature it carries (e.g., no_std), and there are dedicated benchmarks/compatibility sections for each crate.

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 5.0/10. — The repository's root README gives a high-quality overview of the crossbeam crate and its many concurrent-programming tools, with an outline listing Atomics, Data structures, Memory management, Thread synchronization, Utilities, Crates, Usage, Compatibility, Contributing, RFCs, Learning resources, Conduct, License, and Contribution. Each tool is described with usage links to docs.rs pages plus a brief description of the feature it carries (e.g., no_std), and there are dedicated benchmarks/compatibility sections for each crate.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStronggated by 3 serious findings◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

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

3 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 80 exposed types.

Inconsistent naming for blocking vs non-blocking operations. `try_send` is non-blocking, while `send` is blocking. However, the timeout variants are named `send_timeout` and `send_deadline` rather than `send_with_timeout` or similar, creating a slight lexical inconsistency between the base blocking call (`send`) and its timed variants. More critically, `Receiver` uses `recv` (blocking) and `try_recv` (non-blocking), which is consistent with `Sender`, but the timeout methods on `Receiver` are `recv_timeout`/`recv_deadline`. While consistent within the channel module, the mix of `send`/`recv` (blocking) and `try_send`/`try_recv` (non-blocking) is standard, but the lack of a unified `send_with_timeout` pattern makes the API surface feel slightly fragmented between 'try' and 'timeout' naming conventions.

Inconsistent verb usage for state management operations. `register`/`unregister` and `watch`/`unwatch` are used for managing operations, but `try_select` and `accept` are used for execution/consumption. The distinction between `register` and `watch` is not immediately obvious from the names alone without deep documentation, as both seem to associate an operation with the handle. Similarly, `accept` consumes a token, but `unregister` removes an operation. The verbs `register`, `watch`, `accept`, `unregister`, `unwatch` create a slightly confusing set of actions for what is essentially a lifecycle of an async operation.

Inconsistent return types for equivalent operations in SkipList vs SkipMap. `SkipList.get_or_insert` returns `RefEntry` (which requires a guard to release), while `SkipMap.get_or_insert` returns `Entry` (which does not require a guard for release, as implied by the lack of guard parameter in `Entry.remove()` in SkipMap). This inconsistency forces users to handle lifetimes and guards differently for seemingly identical logical operations depending on whether they use the base `SkipList` or the typed `SkipMap`.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for blocking vs non-blocking operations. `try_send`… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent verb usage for state management operations.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent return types for equivalent operations in SkipList vs… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 of 7 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_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 High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `tools/publish.sh` (line 12) — 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness7.5 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

14 of 57 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is crossbeam-utils/src/backoff.rs. Counted over 57 of the 73 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

What to do

Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.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 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-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?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

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 gates8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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.

A CI pipeline exists but no build step was matched — changes may merge without the build ever running. A build step may be invoked directly as a command, or declared as a task that a runner named in the pipeline resolves.

What to do

Add an explicit build step to your CI pipeline — your stack's own build command, or, if the pipeline delegates to a task runner, a build task that runner executes in CI — so every change is built before merge.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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	89%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	99%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Maturity	61%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	87%	Exemplary	Solid.
Security	81%	Adequate — gated by D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.

Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 81 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — 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 — ~16287 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 9 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, and no committed Cargo.lock resolves them to versions, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — Crate licences not graded — this Cargo repository commits no Cargo.lock
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
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 — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (1 of 2 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 13 value object(s)
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — 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
P10 Library API & versioning — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P2 Observability — This repository's Rust source (7 module(s), 59 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not 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
PF2 Allocation hygiene — 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
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: Go has no async/await function colour, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — 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
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Serious — 147 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×43

TodoComment crossbeam-channel/benchmarks/plot.py:119 — # TODO support more subplots — 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 crossbeam-channel/src/select_macro.rs:608 — // // TODO(stjepang): Implement this optimization. — 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 crossbeam-channel/src/select_macro.rs:628 — // // TODO(stjepang): Implement this optimization. — 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 crossbeam-channel/src/select_macro.rs:648 — // // TODO(stjepang): Implement this optimization. — 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 crossbeam-channel/src/select_macro.rs:663 — // // TODO(stjepang): Implement this optimization. — 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 crossbeam-channel/src/select_macro.rs:675 — // // TODO(stjepang): Implement this optimization. — 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 crossbeam-channel/src/select_macro.rs:687 — // // TODO(stjepang): Implement this optimization. — 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 crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:26 — // TODO: On platforms where AtomicU64 is unavailable, we may want to use AtomicCell instead of — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:31 — // TODO: On platforms where AtomicU64 is unavailable, we may want to use AtomicCell instead of — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment crossbeam-epoch/src/epoch.rs:14 — // TODO: On platforms where AtomicU64 is unavailable, we may want to use AtomicCell instead of — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:19 — // TODO: On platforms where AtomicU64 is unavailable, we may want to use AtomicCell instead of — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment crossbeam-queue/src/array_queue.rs:19 — // TODO: On platforms where AtomicU64 is unavailable, we may want to use AtomicCell instead of — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:37 — // TODO(stjepang): Once we bump the minimum required Rust version to 1.28 or newer, re-apply the — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment crossbeam-channel/tests/tick.rs:3 — // TODO: many assertions failed due to Miri is slow — 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 crossbeam-channel/tests/after.rs:3 — // TODO: many assertions failed due to Miri is slow — 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 crossbeam-channel/tests/tick.rs:138 — // TODO: assertions failed due to tsan is slow — 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 crossbeam-channel/tests/tick.rs:266 — // TODO: assertions failed due to tsan is slow — 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 crossbeam-channel/tests/select_macro.rs:850 — // TODO: flaky: https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/issues/1094
TodoComment crossbeam-channel/tests/select.rs:1372 — // TODO: should panic instead of hang — 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 crossbeam-channel/tests/select.rs:1402 — // TODO: should panic instead of hang — 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 crossbeam-channel/tests/select.rs:1449 — // TODO: should error instead hang — 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 crossbeam-channel/tests/select.rs:1516 — // TODO: should not hang — 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 crossbeam-channel/tests/golang.rs:771 — // TODO — 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 crossbeam-channel/tests/golang.rs:1543 — // TODO — 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 crossbeam-channel/tests/golang.rs:1548 — // TODO — 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.
+ 18 more in this group — see findings.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Channel · ×7

Channel::start_recv (cognitive 27) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:334 — Channel::start_recv has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (24 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Channel::start_recv (cognitive 20) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:251 — Channel::start_recv has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Channel::send (cognitive 20) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:352 — Channel::send has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Channel::recv) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
Channel::recv (cognitive 20) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:416 — Channel::recv has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Channel::send) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
Channel::recv (cognitive 20) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:479 — Channel::recv has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Channel::start_send (cognitive 19) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:232 — Channel::start_send has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Channel::start_send (cognitive 17) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:161 — Channel::start_send has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:301 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:301-312 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:405-416 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) crossbeam-epoch/src/atomic.rs:475 — crossbeam-epoch/src/atomic.rs:475-486 | crossbeam-epoch/src/atomic.rs:559-570 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:450 — crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:450-461 | crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:759-770 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:487 — crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:487-498 | crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:802-813 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:524 — crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:524-535 | crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:842-853 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:561 — crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:561-572 | crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:882-893 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×5

FixmeComment crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:1206 — // FIXME: Unsafe but stable version of `Vec::recycle`. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment crossbeam-epoch/src/lib.rs:81 — // FIXME: loom does not support compiler_fence at the moment. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment crossbeam-utils/src/lib.rs:60 — // FIXME: loom does not support compiler_fence at the moment. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment crossbeam-epoch/src/default.rs:23 — // FIXME: loom does not currently provide the equivalent of Lazy: — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment crossbeam-epoch/src/atomic.rs:87 — // FIXME: This is exactly <https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/primitive.pointer.html#method.map_addr-1>,

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×5

HackComment crossbeam-channel/src/channel.rs:1574 — // HACK: This is equivalent to transmute_copy by value, but available in const — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:1135 — // HACK: This is equivalent to transmute_copy by value, but available in const — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment crossbeam-epoch/src/internal.rs:425 — // HACK(stjepang): On x86 architectures there are two different ways of executing — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1029 — // hack but it allows us to return references that are not bound to — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1279 — // hack but it allows us to return references that are not bound to — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:451 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:451-464 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:515-528 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs` and `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1687 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1687-1700 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1893-1906 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:2163 — crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:2163-2176 | crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:2179-2192 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:2211 — crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:2211-2224 | crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:2227-2240 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SkipList · ×3

SkipList::insert_internal (cognitive 41) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1013 — SkipList::insert_internal has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (37 pts), loops 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 24). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SkipList::search_bound (cognitive 32) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:833 — SkipList::search_bound has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (23 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SkipList::search_position (cognitive 26) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:923 — SkipList::search_position has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (13 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:207 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:207-215 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:202-210 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 239 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:802 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:802-810 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1044-1052 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:405 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:405-413 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:468-476 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs` and `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · crossbeam_channel · ×2

crossbeam_channel::select::run_select (cyclomatic 35) crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:176 — crossbeam_channel::select::run_select has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs holds 2 of the 7 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 34 of the 48 points over it (71%), 3.1× the next-largest file (crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs at 11). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
crossbeam_channel::select::run_ready (cyclomatic 29) crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:327 — crossbeam_channel::select::run_ready has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs holds 2 of the 7 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 34 of the 48 points over it (71%), 3.1× the next-largest file (crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs at 11). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Stealer · ×2

Stealer::steal_batch_with_limit (cyclomatic 20) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:767 — Stealer::steal_batch_with_limit has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Stealer::steal_batch_with_limit_and_pop (cyclomatic 19) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1010 — Stealer::steal_batch_with_limit_and_pop has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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 · Injector · ×2

Injector::steal_batch_with_limit (cyclomatic 16) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1622 — Injector::steal_batch_with_limit has cyclomatic complexity 16 (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. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Injector::steal_batch_with_limit_and_pop) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
Injector::steal_batch_with_limit_and_pop (cyclomatic 16) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1829 — Injector::steal_batch_with_limit_and_pop has cyclomatic complexity 16 (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. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Injector::steal_batch_with_limit) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · crossbeam_channel · ×2

crossbeam_channel::select::run_select (cognitive 73) crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:176 — crossbeam_channel::select::run_select has cognitive complexity 73 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (43 pts), loops 8 (18 pts), match/switch 5 (11 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 44). 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.
crossbeam_channel::select::run_ready (cognitive 58) crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:327 — crossbeam_channel::select::run_ready has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (31 pts), loops 7 (16 pts), match/switch 5 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 34). 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 · Stealer · ×2

Stealer::steal_batch_with_limit (cognitive 40) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:767 — Stealer::steal_batch_with_limit has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (24 pts), loops 4 (11 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Stealer::steal_batch_with_limit_and_pop (cognitive 35) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1010 — Stealer::steal_batch_with_limit_and_pop has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), loops 4 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Injector · ×2

Injector::steal_batch_with_limit (cognitive 29) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1622 — Injector::steal_batch_with_limit has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (21 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Injector::steal_batch_with_limit_and_pop) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
Injector::steal_batch_with_limit_and_pop (cognitive 29) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1829 — Injector::steal_batch_with_limit_and_pop has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (21 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Injector::steal_batch_with_limit) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SegQueue · ×2

SegQueue::pop (cognitive 26) crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:377 — SegQueue::pop has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (23 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SegQueue::push (cognitive 17) crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:227 — SegQueue::push has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RefRange · ×2

RefRange::next (cognitive 21) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:2152 — RefRange::next has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (RefRange::next_back) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
RefRange::next_back (cognitive 21) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:2200 — RefRange::next_back has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (RefRange::next) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2

FileTooLong: src/base.rs crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs — FileTooLong — 1226 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 726 over it, 2.45× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/deque.rs crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs — FileTooLong — 854 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 354 over it, 1.71× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:181 — crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:181-199 | crossbeam-channel/src/select.rs:332-350 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1436 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1436-1454 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:274-292 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` and `crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 174 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/channel.rs:1592 — crossbeam-channel/src/channel.rs:1592-1606 | crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:1153-1167 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) crossbeam-epoch/src/sync/queue.rs:126 — crossbeam-epoch/src/sync/queue.rs:126-140 | crossbeam-epoch/src/sync/queue.rs:158-172 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:246 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:246-258 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1417-1429 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:235-247 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 135 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:283 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:283-295 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1433-1445 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:271-283 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 135 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) crossbeam-utils/src/sync/sharded_lock.rs:363 — crossbeam-utils/src/sync/sharded_lock.rs:363-368 | crossbeam-utils/src/sync/sharded_lock.rs:533-538 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1562 — crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1562-1567 | crossbeam-skiplist/src/map.rs:689-694 — 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SkipList · ×1

SkipList::insert_internal (cyclomatic 18) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1013 — SkipList::insert_internal has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Worker · ×1

Worker::pop (cognitive 23) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:471 — Worker::pop has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Inner · ×1

Inner::park (cognitive 18) crossbeam-utils/src/sync/parker.rs:340 — Inner::park has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (10 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent naming for blocking vs non-blocking operations. `try_send` is non-blocking, while `send` is blocking. However, the timeout variants are named `send_timeout` and `send_deadline` rather than `send_with_timeout` or similar, creating a slight lexical inconsistency between the base blocking call (`send`) and its timed variants. More critically, `Receiver` uses `recv` (blocking) and `try_recv` (non-blocking), which is consistent with `Sender`, but the timeout methods on `Receiver` are `recv_timeout`/`recv_deadline`. While consistent within the channel module, the mix of `send`/`recv` (blocking) and `try_send`/`try_recv` (non-blocking) is standard, but the lack of a unified `send_with_timeout` pattern makes the API surface feel slightly fragmented between 'try' and 'timeout' naming conventions. · ×1

Inconsistent naming for blocking vs non-blocking operations. `try_send` is non-blocking, while `send` is blocking. However, the timeout variants are named `send_timeout` and `send_deadline` rather than `send_with_timeout` or similar, creating a slight lexical inconsistency between the base blocking call (`send`) and its timed variants. More critically, `Receiver` uses `recv` (blocking) and `try_recv` (non-blocking), which is consistent with `Sender`, but the timeout methods on `Receiver` are `recv_timeout`/`recv_deadline`. While consistent within the channel module, the mix of `send`/`recv` (blocking) and `try_send`/`try_recv` (non-blocking) is standard, but the lack of a unified `send_with_timeout` pattern makes the API surface feel slightly fragmented between 'try' and 'timeout' naming conventions. — Consider unifying the timeout/dedline naming convention. Either use `send_timeout`/`recv_timeout` for all timed operations (current state) or introduce `send_with_timeout`/`recv_with_timeout` to clearly distinguish them from the base `send`/`recv`. The current mix is acceptable but `try_` vs `_timeout` is a minor cognitive load. (signatures: Sender.try_send(msg: T): Result | Sender.send(msg: T): Result | Sender.send_timeout(msg: T, timeout: Duration): Result | Sender.send_deadline(msg: T, deadline: Instant): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent verb usage for state management operations. `register`/`unregister` and `watch`/`unwatch` are used for managing operations, but `try_select` and `accept` are used for execution/consumption. The distinction between `register` and `watch` is not immediately obvious from the names alone without deep documentation, as both seem to associate an operation with the handle. Similarly, `accept` consumes a token, but `unregister` removes an operation. The verbs `register`, `watch`, `accept`, `unregister`, `unwatch` create a slightly confusing set of actions for what is essentially a lifecycle of an async operation. · ×1

Inconsistent verb usage for state management operations. `register`/`unregister` and `watch`/`unwatch` are used for managing operations, but `try_select` and `accept` are used for execution/consumption. The distinction between `register` and `watch` is not immediately obvious from the names alone without deep documentation, as both seem to associate an operation with the handle. Similarly, `accept` consumes a token, but `unregister` removes an operation. The verbs `register`, `watch`, `accept`, `unregister`, `unwatch` create a slightly confusing set of actions for what is essentially a lifecycle of an async operation. — Clarify the distinction between `register` and `watch`. If they serve different purposes (e.g., one for polling, one for async notification), the names should reflect that (e.g., `poll_register` vs `async_watch`). If they are synonyms, unify them. (signatures: SelectHandle.try_select(token: Token): bool | SelectHandle.register(oper: Operation, cx: Context): bool | SelectHandle.unregister(oper: Operation) | SelectHandle.accept(token: Token, cx: Context): bool | SelectHandle.watch(oper: Operation, cx: Context): bool | SelectHandle.unwatch(oper: Operation))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent return types for equivalent operations in SkipList vs SkipMap. `SkipList.get_or_insert` returns `RefEntry` (which requires a guard to release), while `SkipMap.get_or_insert` returns `Entry` (which does not require a guard for release, as implied by the lack of guard parameter in `Entry.remove()` in SkipMap). This inconsistency forces users to handle lifetimes and guards differently for seemingly identical logical operations depending on whether they use the base `SkipList` or the typed `SkipMap`. · ×1

Inconsistent return types for equivalent operations in SkipList vs SkipMap. `SkipList.get_or_insert` returns `RefEntry` (which requires a guard to release), while `SkipMap.get_or_insert` returns `Entry` (which does not require a guard for release, as implied by the lack of guard parameter in `Entry.remove()` in SkipMap). This inconsistency forces users to handle lifetimes and guards differently for seemingly identical logical operations depending on whether they use the base `SkipList` or the typed `SkipMap`. — Unify the return types. Either both should return `RefEntry` (requiring guard management) or both should return `Entry` (if the map handles guard management internally). The current split creates a confusing API surface where the same logical operation has different ownership/release semantics. (signatures: SkipList.get_or_insert(key: K, value: V, guard: Guard): RefEntry | SkipList.get_or_insert_with(key: K, value: F, guard: Guard): RefEntry | SkipMap.get_or_insert(key: K, value: V): Entry | SkipMap.get_or_insert_with(key: K, value_fn: F): Entry)

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1

TooManyMethods: AtomicCell crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs:33 — TooManyMethods — 110 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 80 over it, 3.67× 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.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1

ClassTooLong: SkipList crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:468 — ClassTooLong — 492 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 29 methods, 8 blocks, lines 468-1477. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 92 over it, 1.23× 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 40 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 40 shared lines) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1485 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1485-1561 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1622-1767 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1829-1979 — These 3 members are variants of one another: a block of 40 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 3 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 3 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (79 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (79 shared lines) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:767 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:767-946 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1010-1199 — These two members are variants of one another: 79 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:232 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:232-312 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:334-416 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1409-1467 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:227-305 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:377-462 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:161 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:161-230 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:251-321 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:549-593 | crossbeam-queue/src/array_queue.rs:334-396 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (60–61 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (60–61 lines × 2) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1623 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1623-1683 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1830-1889 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (43–44 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (43–44 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:251 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:251-294 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:240-282 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 239 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (40 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (40 lines × 2) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1724 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1724-1763 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1936-1975 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (33 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (33 lines × 3) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:532 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:532-564 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:2016-2048 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:577-609 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 135 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:863 — crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:863-893 | crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:952-982 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:917 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:917-942 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1170-1195 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:880 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:880-902 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1138-1160 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:427 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:427-448 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:491-512 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs` and `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 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.

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

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:778 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:778-798 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1020-1040 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:184 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:184-203 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:267-286 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1486 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1486-1504 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1624-1642 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1831-1849 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

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

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:378 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:378-395 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:413-430 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 239 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:335 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:335-351 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:378-394 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 239 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:707 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:707-722 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:631-646 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 239 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 3) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:137 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:137-150 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1309-1322 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:122-134 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 135 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:688 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:688-701 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:2053-2066 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:614-627 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 135 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 3) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1508 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1508-1519 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1647-1659 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1854-1865 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–12 lines × 2) crossbeam-queue/src/array_queue.rs:152 — crossbeam-queue/src/array_queue.rs:152-163 | crossbeam-queue/src/array_queue.rs:255-261 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:339 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:339-349 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1415-1425 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:233-243 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:382-392 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 135 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1538 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1538-1548 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1904-1914 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:432-442 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` and `crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 174 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:250 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:250-260 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:278-288 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1712 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1712-1721 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1923-1933 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1536 — crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1536-1544 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1696-1704 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1902-1910 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:430-438 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` and `crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 13 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 174 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:258 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:258-266 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:562-570 | crossbeam-queue/src/array_queue.rs:341-349 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1968 — crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1968-1975 | crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:2249-2256 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) crossbeam-channel/src/counter.rs:71 — crossbeam-channel/src/counter.rs:71-77 | crossbeam-channel/src/counter.rs:130-136 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:175 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:175-180 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:258-263 | crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/array.rs:562-567 | crossbeam-queue/src/array_queue.rs:341-346 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1823 — crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1823-1827 | crossbeam-skiplist/src/base.rs:1850-1854 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:73 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:73-78 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1245-1250 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:58-63 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 135 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:103 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:103-118 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1275-1290 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:88-103 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 135 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:121 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:121-130 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1293-1302 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:106-115 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 135 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:674 — crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs:674-678 | crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs:1994-1998 | crossbeam-queue/src/seg_queue.rs:554-558 — before extracting anything, compare `crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/list.rs` and `crossbeam-deque/src/deque.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 135 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: crossbeam-utils — crossbeam-utils: abstractness 0.11, instability 0.00, distance 0.89 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 6 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

Minor — 9 finding(s)

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 20 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/atomic_cell.rs, crossbeam-epoch/src/internal.rs, crossbeam-utils/src/sync/sharded_lock.rs, crossbeam-utils/src/thread.rs, crossbeam-epoch/src/sync/list.rs, crossbeam-channel/src/flavors/zero.rs, crossbeam-epoch/src/sync/queue.rs, crossbeam-utils/src/sync/parker.rs (+12 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 14 of 57 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 57 of the 73 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: crossbeam-utils/src/backoff.rs, crossbeam-utils/src/atomic/seq_lock_wide.rs, crossbeam-channel/benchmarks/crossbeam-channel.rs, crossbeam-channel/src/context.rs, crossbeam-channel/benchmarks/go.go, crossbeam-channel/benchmarks/flume.rs, crossbeam-channel/benchmarks/plot.py, crossbeam-channel/benchmarks/mpsc.rs (and 6 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D9 · Test Distribution · Inverted test pyramid · ×1

Inverted test pyramid — Only 7 % of tests are unit tests (47 unit vs 606 integration, 0 BDD); a broader unit base gives faster, more localised feedback.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

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.

P1 · CI/CD gates · CI build step not evidenced · ×1

CI build step not evidenced — A CI pipeline exists but no build step was matched — changes may merge without the build ever running. A build step may be invoked directly as a command, or declared as a task that a runner named in the pipeline resolves.

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	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-e3040abcf5504480846b19bb4f67f803/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	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-e3040abcf5504480846b19bb4f67f803/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	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 .	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	—
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.	—
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.	—
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.	—
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.	—
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.	—
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.	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	—

Run 01a0ec3b-1c7d-7465-9ade-c82a28722f0d · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Crossbeam-Rs/crossbeam

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 89% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 99% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 61% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 87% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Security · 81% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

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