fff — 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.

This system is a strong, stable asset with an overall health score of 66%, but it carries a hidden tax on delivery speed. While the architecture is robust and performance is excellent, the code quality in the core logic is dragging down maintainability. This creates a risk where every change becomes slower and more expensive than it needs to be, threatening long-term agility despite the system’s current reliability.

The value at stake is significant. With over forty thousand lines of production code, this is a medium-sized asset that would cost approximately seventy-three thousand euros to rebuild from scratch. However, the real cost is not in rebuilding, but in the ongoing friction of maintaining it. The codebase is heavily used, with nearly one hundred and fifty thousand lines modified annually, meaning inefficiencies here compound rapidly across the entire engineering team’s output.

The primary risk is a velocity tax embedded in the code’s complexity. The weakest area is code health, where high complexity and duplication act as a drag on every single change. This inefficiency likely adds four to nine percent to the effort required for modifications, creating a recurring annual cost that far exceeds the one-time effort to fix it. This is not just a technical debt; it is a direct hit to the team’s capacity to deliver new features.

A secondary concern is the fragmented structure of the code. Large files bundle multiple responsibilities, making it difficult for new engineers to understand the system or for teams to work in parallel without conflicts. This lack of clear boundaries increases the risk of defects and slows down onboarding, further eroding the team’s ability to respond to business needs quickly.

What is genuinely good is the system’s architectural integrity and performance. The design is sound, and the system is highly reliable in production. These strengths provide a solid foundation that makes remediation feasible without requiring a risky rewrite. The focus should be on refactoring the messy code rather than changing the underlying structure.

The first action should be to split the largest files into smaller, focused modules. This single move breaks even within months by reducing the annual drag on development. It is the highest-leverage step to restore speed and reduce risk, allowing the team to capitalize on the system’s strong architectural base.

Code Health 58% Adequate · gated by R3 Architecture 98% ★ Exemplary Maturity 66% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 71% Strong Security 74% Adequate · gated by D29 Performance 100% ★ Exemplary

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

Code Health 58% · 46% weightMaturity 66% · 25% weightReadiness 71% · 14% weightSecurity 74% · 8% weightArchitecture 98% · 4% weightPerformance 100% · 2% weight

Raise Code Health 58 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 66 → ~71.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (54+)

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

D1 · fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner (cyclomatic 46) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs
D1 · BigramIndexBuilder::compress (cyclomatic 19) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs
D1 · fff_search::git_recency::compute_git_recency (cyclomatic 18) crates/fff-core/src/git_recency.rs
D2 · fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner (cognitive 75) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs
D2 · fff_search::git_recency::compute_git_recency (cognitive 35) crates/fff-core/src/git_recency.rs
D3 · FunctionTooLong: fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner crates/fff-core/src/score.rs
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_grep_query.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/dbs/frecency.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs
D5 · Off the main sequence: @ff-labs/fff-bun
D5 · Off the main sequence: @ff-labs/fff-node
D5 · Off the main sequence: fff-search
D5 · Off the main sequence: fff-query-parser
D15 · Hotspot: crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs
D15 · Hotspot: crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs
D15 · Repeated repair: packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts
D15 · Repeated repair: packages/fff-node/test/watch.mjs packages/fff-node/test/watch.mjs
D22 · Inconsistent return type for path lookup. One returns the item directly (implying it always exists or panics/returns default), while the other returns an Option. This creates confusion about whether the item is guaranteed to exist.
D22 · Two constructors with significantly different signatures for the same type. `new_with_shared_state` is a specialized factory method that duplicates the intent of creating a FilePicker but requires internal shared state objects that are not present in the standard `new` constructor. This suggests `new` might be a convenience wrapper or that the shared state pattern is inconsistently applied.
D22 · Inconsistent method naming for search variants. `fuzzy_search` is the default, but `fuzzy_search_directories` and `fuzzy_search_mixed` are explicit. However, `fuzzy_search` takes a `query_tracker` while `fuzzy_search_directories` does not. The naming doesn't clearly indicate that `fuzzy_search` is 'files only' vs 'mixed'.
D22 · Duplicate function signatures in the same module. The second signature uses an underscore-prefixed parameter `_bytes`, which in Rust usually indicates an unused variable, but having two functions with the same name and signature in the same scope is a compilation error or indicates a copy-paste error in the API surface provided.
D30 · REDACTED
D30 · REDACTED
R10 · Wholesale file copy (190 identical lines × 2 files) packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts
R10 · Wholesale file copy (68 identical lines × 2 files) packages/fff-bun/src/platform.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (52 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/download.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (41 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (30 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (24 lines × 4 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/paths.ts
R10 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts

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 — €24,000–€120,000

Cost to rebuild	€24,000–€120,000 (0.2–0.8 person-years (404–1,282 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.9× (at 66% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€73,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Code Health at 58% — 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 0.9× 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.

Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.

+7.6 pts · Medium effort · Large Files

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

+3.6 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.

+6.1 pts · Medium effort · Cyclomatic Complexity

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

The top fix pays for itself · High · Economics

The top-ranked fix costs roughly 3–10 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 14.9–89.5 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~152,943 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–8 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 4–9% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.

Evidence: D15 churn: 37,712 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~152,943/year · D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 6.4/10 ⇒ a 4–9% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Medium effort ⇒ about 3–10 engineer-day(s)

→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 8 months.

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

This is a Medium asset (~0.5 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Code Health at 58%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.5 person-years rebuild (43,281 LoC) · weakest lens: Code Health 58%

→ Direct remediation budget at Code Health 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: Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.

A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics

The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.4/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 4–9% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)

Evidence: D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 6.4/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured

→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.

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.)

115 modules, 164 dependencies. 2 dependency cycles across 15 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 75 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 fff_nvim.hex_dump	2 fff_query_parser.constraints	3 fff_query_parser.location	4 fff_search.dbs.db_healthcheck	7 fff_grep.matcher	8 fff_query_parser.parser	9 fff_search.shared	10 fff_search.simd_path	11 fff_grep.searcher	12 fff_search.git_status_worker	13 fff_search.index.constraints	14 fff_search.scan	15 fff_grep.searcher.core	16 fff_grep.sink	17 fff_search.watcher.background_watcher	19 fff_search.error	20 fff_search.dbs.env_pool	21 fff_search.dbs.lmdb	22 fff_search.dbs.frecency	23 fff_search.dbs.query_tracker	24 fff_search.types	25 fff_search.grep.types	26 fff_search.index.bigram_filter	28 fff_python.types	29 fff_search.file_picker	31 fff_search.grep.sink	32 fff_c.ffi_types	33 fff_mcp.output
1 fff_nvim.hex_dump
2 fff_query_parser.constraints
3 fff_query_parser.location
4 fff_search.dbs.db_healthcheck
5 packages.fff-bun.src.fff-api
6 packages.pi-fff.src
7 fff_grep.matcher																1
8 fff_query_parser.parser		1	1
9 fff_search.shared																									1
10 fff_search.simd_path																					2
11 fff_grep.searcher					2											1
12 fff_search.git_status_worker							1
13 fff_search.index.constraints		2						4
14 fff_search.scan	1						2																		2
15 fff_grep.searcher.core									2
16 fff_grep.sink									1							1
17 fff_search.watcher.background_watcher	1						2			2															3
18 fff_grep.searcher.glue									3				2
19 fff_search.error														1
20 fff_search.dbs.env_pool				2												1
21 fff_search.dbs.lmdb				1												1	1
22 fff_search.dbs.frecency				2													1	1							1
23 fff_search.dbs.query_tracker				2													1	1
24 fff_search.types			2			1		5			2								1	1					1
25 fff_search.grep.types																					1
26 fff_search.index.bigram_filter								1													1
27 fff_search.score					1	1		1	1												5
28 fff_python.types																					6	1
29 fff_search.file_picker	1					1	1	7		1		1			1				1	1	12	2	4
30 fff_search.grep.fuzzy_grep								1													1	2
31 fff_search.grep.sink									1					1								1
32 fff_c.ffi_types			1																		8	2			9
33 fff_mcp.output																					1				2
34 fff_nvim.lua_types			1																		6	1			5
35 fff_python.finder							2														2	3		1	2
36 fff_search.grep.grep					2	1		2	1					3							3	2	2			1
37 fff_search.grep.multi_pattern					2			1	1					3							1	2	2			1
38 fff_search.grep.regex					2				1					3								1				1
39 fff_c							1															1					1
40 fff_mcp.server							1															2						2

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

At a glance — Code Health · 58% · Adequate · gated by R3 ·

The Good

D3 · Rust God Classes 7.9 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.2 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 10.0 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 8.7 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 8.6 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 7.7 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 10.0

The Bad

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 5.6

The Ugly

D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 4.5 R3 · React / TS Large Files 0.0

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 8.3 D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 7.0 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.9 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 66% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 8.9 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 7.3 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 9.9 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.8 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Ugly

D20 · Rust ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 71% · Strong ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · Rust Test Quality 10.0 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 7.5 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0 R4 · React / TS Test Coverage 8.0 R5 · React / TS Dependency Freshness 10.0 R6 · React / TS Tooling 10.0 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 5.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D29 ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.8 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0

The Bad

D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 5.0

The Ugly

D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 0.6

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	100	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	5	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by splitting the six largest files into smaller, focused modules to improve manageability, then reduce cyclomatic complexity in branch-heavy functions to ensure they remain simple and readable. Address code duplication by extracting shared logic or types where appropriate, and migrate the remaining JavaScript files to TypeScript to strengthen type safety. Finally, document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated, discoverable location to preserve institutional knowledge.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.	+7.6 pts	Medium	Large Files
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+3.6 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.	+6.1 pts	Medium	Cyclomatic Complexity
Resolve the 7 fff_search finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with score.rs (2), background_watcher.rs, fuzzy_grep.rs.	+1.4 pts	Low	Cyclomatic Complexity
Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.	+5.3 pts	Medium	Code Duplication
Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.	+5.1 pts	Medium	Type Safety
Resolve the 17 fff_search finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with bigram_query.rs (5), score.rs (3), grep.rs (3).	+2.3 pts	Medium	Cognitive Complexity
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).	+3.7 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 58 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 3% slop · 25% mixed · 72% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.1	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crates/fff-core/src/scan.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crates/fff-core/src/simd_string_utils/memmem.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
crates/fff-core/src/score.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner (cyclomatic 46)
crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: fff_c::fff_create_instance_with (cyclomatic 18)
crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: QueryParser::parse (cyclomatic 23)
crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: fff_search::grep::grep::perform_grep (cyclomatic 27)

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 — 100

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 — 260

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 — 10

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

Could not be resolved — 50

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. 44 of 48 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 — 48 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D9D10D13D15D16D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D30D34D35D36D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6PF3R1R10R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9

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, 351 of 370 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 01a0eb51-c480-7c41-aa74-0ae8a1b68578.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D4 Code Duplication — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 71 duplicated block group(s) on this row were found in the languages this pass could tokenize, and they do NOT cover all of this repository's production source: .lua (8,906 lines, 17% of production source) went unread, because no language model this pass could load exposed a clone-unit token stream for those file kinds. Duplication in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the count above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code is free of duplication. Duplication in .ts is measured by R10 Code Duplication and is not part of this gap.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
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, .ts, .rb) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`, or lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`, or SimpleCov — `require "simplecov"` in your `spec_helper.rb`/`test_helper.rb`, which writes `coverage/.resultset.json` (or lcov via `simplecov-lcov`)) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`, or lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`, or SimpleCov — `require "simplecov"` in your `spec_helper.rb`/`test_helper.rb`, which writes `coverage/.resultset.json` (or lcov via `simplecov-lcov`)) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 155 test(s) behind this row are the ones the JavaScript/TypeScript census could read, and this repository also carries at least 45 test source file(s) (.rs, .rb) that it cannot: it reads JavaScript/TypeScript test declarations off disk, so a JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT SCORED: this repository's production source includes .ts, and the built-in reliability runner cannot re-run the .ts test suite(s) — so reliability was not measured for the repository as a whole. The Rust (repository root, 67 test files): measured (0 flaky) suite(s) did re-run, and came back with 0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s) — but that is a figure for one half of the product, and we do not publish a partial one as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — test reliability is excluded from the score rather than counted.
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 — 22 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, which could not be reached on this run, 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. License Compliance couldn't be assessed within its 15-minute budget on a solution this large — not included in this run.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
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.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
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.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a 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.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (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 Complexity5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

25 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was index.fffExtension at 148.

fff_search::watcher::background_watcher::handle_debounced_events (cyclomatic 85) · ×7crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:328

fff_mcp::output::format_files_with_matches (cyclomatic 29) · ×2crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:377

fff_query_parser::parser::parse_token (cyclomatic 21) · ×2crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:270

fff_c::fff_create_instance_with (cyclomatic 18) · ×2crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:183

index.fffExtension (cyclomatic 148)packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:305

+ 11 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 7 fff_search finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with score.rs (2), background_watcher.rs, fuzzy_grep.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 fff_mcp finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with output.rs, main.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 fff_query_parser finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with parser.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 Complexity4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

48 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was fff_search::watcher::background_watcher::handle_debounced_events at 177.

fff_search::watcher::background_watcher::handle_debounced_events (cognitive 177) · ×17crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:328

fff_nvim::health_check (cognitive 27) · ×4crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:893

fff_mcp::output::format_files_with_matches (cognitive 62) · ×3crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:377

fff_c::fff_health_check (cognitive 30) · ×2crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1169

BackgroundWatcher::create_debouncer (cognitive 25) · ×2crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:175

+ 19 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 17 fff_search finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with bigram_query.rs (5), score.rs (3), grep.rs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 fff_nvim finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with lib.rs, rescan_probe.rs, grep_profiler.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 fff_mcp finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with output.rs, main.rs, healthcheck.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

29 god class(es) detected.

FunctionTooLong: index.fffExtension · ×11packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:305

FileTooLong: src/file_picker.rs · ×11crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs

TooManyMethods: FilePicker · ×2crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:589

ClassTooLong: FilePicker · ×2crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:589

MethodTooLong: GrepFormatter.format · ×2crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:167

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

What to do

Resolve the 11 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with score.rs (2), grep.rs (2), index.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Resolve the 11 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ffi.ts (2), lib.rs (2), file_picker.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with file_picker.rs, types.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.2 / 10Stronggated by 75 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

71 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. 1 of the 75 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population. Measured on part of this repository only: .lua (17% of production source) was not exposed to the token comparison, so duplication there is unmeasured and is not in this count. Measured on part of this repository only: .ts (17% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×7crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:166

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×5crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1393

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×5crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1290

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×4crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:430

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×3crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1357

+ 42 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 7 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ffi_types.rs (2), sink.rs, score.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with file_picker.rs, multi_pattern.rs, background_watcher.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with file_picker.rs, output.rs, grep_vs_rg.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 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 · Coupling8.3 / 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 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

19 production modules (Cargo+npm+Python), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 4 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 10 of the 19 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: @ff-labs/fff-bun · ×4

What to do

Resolve the 4 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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?

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

723 test methods: 534 unit, 189 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 155 `it`/`test` case(s) across 11 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only. The Rust suite contributes 539 `#[test]` function(s) across 67 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 28 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test. The Python suite contributes 29 test function(s) across 2 file(s) declaring at least one — every `def test…` in a file pytest or unittest would collect, which is those frameworks' own definition of a case; a parametrize table counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is read from file names and paths only.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 155 tests. Measured on the JavaScript/TypeScript suite only — at least 45 test source file(s) (.rs, .rb) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_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 Hotspots8.9 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts (22×148=3256); crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs (7×85=595); crates/fff-core/src/score.rs (10×46=460) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: packages/pi-fff/src/aux-finders.ts (7 of 8 changes were fixes); packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts (3 of 5 changes were fixes); packages/fff-node/test/watch.mjs (3 of 4 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts · ×12packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:305

Repeated repair: packages/pi-fff/src/aux-finders.ts · ×3packages/pi-fff/src/aux-finders.ts:126

What to do

Resolve the 12 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with index.ts, background_watcher.rs, score.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with aux-finders.ts, ffi.ts, watch.mjs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor7.3 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

25 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is crates/fff-core/src/score.rs. Counted over 92 of the 114 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

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).
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) 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 Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 7 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

7 deducted task-comment markers across 43281 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×7crates/fff-core/src/scan.rs:355

What to do

Resolve the 7 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with file_picker.rs (3), scan.rs, bigram_query.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 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 QualityExemplary◐ 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 Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The repository's root README and fff.nvim.txt give a strong overview (the project name, its purpose, performance claims, and a live-demo link), while the READMEs for crates/fff-core/, packages/fff-bun/, packages/fff-node/, and packages/pi-fff/ each document their own directory rather than the repository. The root README is ideal for installation, usage, contribution, and license; fff.nvim.txt is excellent documentation for Neovim users (installation, lazy.nvim setup, keys).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStrong◐ 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

4 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 79 exposed types.

Inconsistent return type for path lookup. One returns the item directly (implying it always exists or panics/returns default), while the other returns an Option. This creates confusion about whether the item is guaranteed to exist.

Two constructors with significantly different signatures for the same type. `new_with_shared_state` is a specialized factory method that duplicates the intent of creating a FilePicker but requires internal shared state objects that are not present in the standard `new` constructor. This suggests `new` might be a convenience wrapper or that the shared state pattern is inconsistently applied.

Inconsistent method naming for search variants. `fuzzy_search` is the default, but `fuzzy_search_directories` and `fuzzy_search_mixed` are explicit. However, `fuzzy_search` takes a `query_tracker` while `fuzzy_search_directories` does not. The naming doesn't clearly indicate that `fuzzy_search` is 'files only' vs 'mixed'.

Duplicate function signatures in the same module. The second signature uses an underscore-prefixed parameter `_bytes`, which in Rust usually indicates an unused variable, but having two functions with the same name and signature in the same scope is a compilation error or indicates a copy-paste error in the API surface provided.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent return type for path lookup. One returns the item directly… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Two constructors with significantly different signatures for the same… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent method naming for search variants. `fuzzy_search` is the… 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)0.6 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

100 finding(s): 0 critical, 99 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 83 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts` (line 338), `scripts/release.sh` (line 4) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 2 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 6 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 83 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (83 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.8 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium advisory (unsound) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 of 92 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is crates/fff-python/src/conversions.rs. Counted over 92 of the 114 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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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 & Signing5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-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 composition9.9 / 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)7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add a README to the 16 of 21 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.5 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 5/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `packages/fff-python`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

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?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R1 · Type Safety8.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

What to do

Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R10 · Code Duplication8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

7 duplicated blocks under packages/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories fff-bun, fff-node — 5 of them are reported below, and 2 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 7 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 7 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 7 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:37
packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:37 · packages/fff-node/src/finder.ts:35 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 190 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:37
packages/fff-bun/src/platform.ts:5 · packages/fff-node/src/platform.ts:5 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 68 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — packages/fff-bun/src/platform.ts:5
packages/fff-bun/src/download.ts:38 · packages/fff-node/src/binary.ts:53 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/fff-bun/src/download.ts:38
packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1206 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1316 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1206
packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:955 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1130 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:955
packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:859 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:927 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1024 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1102 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:859
packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1349 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1409 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1349
packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:1144 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:1218 — 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. — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:1144
packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:728 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:918 — 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. — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:728
packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:959 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1161 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:959
packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:85 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:117 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:85
packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1446 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1480 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1446
packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:819 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:948 — 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. — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:819
packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:982 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1173 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:982
packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:427 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:658 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:854 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:1020 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:427
packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:273 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts: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. — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:273
packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1129 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1273 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1129
packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:696 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:747 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:696
packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:894 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:985 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1064 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1160 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:894
packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:497 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:326 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:497
packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1146 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1287 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1146
packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:391 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:150 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:391
packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:679 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:889 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:1065 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:679
packages/pi-fff/src/paths.ts:45 · packages/pi-fff/src/paths.ts:53 — 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. — packages/pi-fff/src/paths.ts:45
packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:303 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:319 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:303

What to do

Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

execute has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 25; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1005
execute has cyclomatic complexity 23 and cognitive complexity 23; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1198
normalizePathConstraint has cyclomatic complexity 21 and cognitive complexity 21; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/pi-fff/src/query.ts:3
main has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/fff-bun/test.ts:4
create has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/fff-node/src/finder.ts:121
create has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 15; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:129
multiGrep has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×2) — packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:408, packages/fff-node/src/finder.ts:414
parseMixedSearchResult has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:905
grep has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×2) — packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:362, packages/fff-node/src/finder.ts:368
ffiCreate has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:534
handler has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1452
ffiCreate has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:355

What to do

Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R3 · Large Files0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

6 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts (1721), packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts (1425), packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts (1323), packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts (691), packages/fff-node/src/finder.ts (670), packages/shared/fff-api.ts (612).

What to do

Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R4 · Test Coverage8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×4) — packages/fff-bun/test.ts, packages/fff-node/scripts/cli.ts, packages/fff-node/scripts/postinstall.ts, …

What to do

Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).

Do you agree with this assessment?

R5 · Dependency Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).

Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R7 · Dead Code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

1 file(s) (~49 LoC) were excluded from dead-code analysis — declare main/module/exports or a conventional entry (src/index.*, an index.html script) so reachability can see this package.
1 file(s) (~663 LoC) were excluded from dead-code analysis — declare main/module/exports or a conventional entry (src/index.*, an index.html script) so reachability can see this package. — packages
11 file(s) (~4020 LoC) were excluded from dead-code analysis. This package's entry point(s) resolved, but the walk stopped one hop in: packages/fff-bun/src/index.ts imports './fff-api', which is not in the scanned tree. That is usually a generated or build-output module, so reachability cannot see past it and no dead-code claim is made about this package. Nothing is necessarily wrong here. — packages/fff-bun

Do you agree with this assessment?

R8 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). 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	58%	Adequate — gated by R3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	98%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	66%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	71%	Strong	Solid.
Security	74%	Adequate — gated by D29	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

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

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

X9 Subsumed condition operand — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

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

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

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

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

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not 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.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not scored — polyglot repository, one half has no runner
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 22 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, which could not be reached on this run, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — License Compliance not included (time budget)
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — too few calls resolved to assess navigability
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 1 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — D6 reads a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART/JAVA/PY/KT/TS/TSX/MTS/CTS/JS/JSX/MJS/CJS/PHP class graph only — this repository's production source is .lua, .rb, .rs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (17 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'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Ruby, 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
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
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

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 100 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 58 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 260 finding(s)

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · fff_search · ×17

fff_search::watcher::background_watcher::handle_debounced_events (cognitive 177) crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:328 — fff_search::watcher::background_watcher::handle_debounced_events has cognitive complexity 177 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 54 (119 pts), loops 10 (26 pts), boolean chains 18, match/switch 4 (14 pts) (nesting depth added 91). 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.
fff_search::grep::fuzzy_grep::fuzzy_grep_search (cognitive 104) crates/fff-core/src/grep/fuzzy_grep.rs:13 — fff_search::grep::fuzzy_grep::fuzzy_grep_search has cognitive complexity 104 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 37 (86 pts), loops 7 (12 pts), boolean chains 6 (nesting depth added 54). 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.
fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner (cognitive 75) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:672 — fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner has cognitive complexity 75 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 47 (58 pts), boolean chains 12, loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
fff_search::grep::prefilter::prefilter_files (cognitive 75) crates/fff-core/src/grep/prefilter.rs:53 — fff_search::grep::prefilter::prefilter_files has cognitive complexity 75 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (51 pts), loops 6 (16 pts), boolean chains 7, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 43). Of this number, 74 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. 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.
fff_search::grep::grep::perform_grep (cognitive 46) crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs:550 — fff_search::grep::grep::perform_grep has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (30 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fff_search::simd_string_utils::memmem::find_packed_pair_avx2 (cognitive 41) crates/fff-core/src/simd_string_utils/memmem.rs:80 — fff_search::simd_string_utils::memmem::find_packed_pair_avx2 has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (30 pts), loops 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (fff_search::simd_string_utils::memmem::find_packed_pair_neon) 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.
fff_search::simd_string_utils::memmem::find_packed_pair_neon (cognitive 41) crates/fff-core/src/simd_string_utils/memmem.rs:184 — fff_search::simd_string_utils::memmem::find_packed_pair_neon has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (30 pts), loops 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (fff_search::simd_string_utils::memmem::find_packed_pair_avx2) 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.
fff_search::index::bigram_query::expand_class (cognitive 38) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs:454 — fff_search::index::bigram_query::expand_class has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (27 pts), loops 4 (10 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 24). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fff_search::git_recency::compute_git_recency (cognitive 35) crates/fff-core/src/git_recency.rs:27 — fff_search::git_recency::compute_git_recency has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (23 pts), match/switch 2 (7 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fff_search::score::fuzzy_match_and_score_dirs (cognitive 24) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:455 — fff_search::score::fuzzy_match_and_score_dirs has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19, match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
fff_search::score::fuzzy_match_byte_offsets_for_page (cognitive 20) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:251 — fff_search::score::fuzzy_match_byte_offsets_for_page has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fff_search::index::bigram_query::collect_first (cognitive 20) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs:545 — fff_search::index::bigram_query::collect_first has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), loops 2 (4 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 (fff_search::index::bigram_query::collect_last) 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.
fff_search::index::bigram_query::collect_last (cognitive 20) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs:571 — fff_search::index::bigram_query::collect_last has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), loops 2 (4 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 (fff_search::index::bigram_query::collect_first) 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.
fff_search::grep::grep::grep_search_parsed (cognitive 18) crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs:274 — fff_search::grep::grep::grep_search_parsed has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), match/switch 3, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
fff_search::index::bigram_query::decompose_literal (cognitive 18) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs:326 — fff_search::index::bigram_query::decompose_literal has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fff_search::grep::grep::replace_newline_escapes (cognitive 17) crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs:464 — fff_search::grep::grep::replace_newline_escapes has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (10 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fff_search::index::bigram_query::decompose_concat (cognitive 16) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs:385 — fff_search::index::bigram_query::decompose_concat has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×12

Hotspot: packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:305 — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts changed 22 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 148 in index.fffExtension at line 305. 18 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:328 — crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 85 in fff_search::watcher::background_watcher::handle_debounced_events at line 328. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 5 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: crates/fff-core/src/score.rs crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:672 — crates/fff-core/src/score.rs changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 46 in fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner at line 672. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 8 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/fff-core/src/score.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs:550 — crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 27 in fff_search::grep::grep::perform_grep at line 550. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 6 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: crates/fff-core/src/grep/fuzzy_grep.rs crates/fff-core/src/grep/fuzzy_grep.rs:13 — crates/fff-core/src/grep/fuzzy_grep.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 43 in fff_search::grep::fuzzy_grep::fuzzy_grep_search at line 13. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/fff-core/src/grep/fuzzy_grep.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: crates/fff-mcp/src/main.rs crates/fff-mcp/src/main.rs:278 — crates/fff-mcp/src/main.rs changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 26 in fff_mcp::main at line 278. 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/fff-mcp/src/main.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: crates/fff-core/src/scan.rs crates/fff-core/src/scan.rs:152 — crates/fff-core/src/scan.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 23 in ScanJob::run at line 152. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/fff-core/src/scan.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs:376 — crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in BigramIndexBuilder::compress at line 376. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 5 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:183 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in fff_c::fff_create_instance_with at line 183. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 3 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: crates/fff-core/src/grep/prefilter.rs crates/fff-core/src/grep/prefilter.rs:53 — crates/fff-core/src/grep/prefilter.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 31 in fff_search::grep::prefilter::prefilter_files at line 53. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 1 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/fff-core/src/grep/prefilter.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: packages/pi-fff/src/query.ts packages/pi-fff/src/query.ts:3 — packages/pi-fff/src/query.ts changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 20 in query.normalizePathConstraint at line 3. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- packages/pi-fff/src/query.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:171 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in fff_nvim::bin::grep_profiler::main at line 171. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×11

FunctionTooLong: index.fffExtension packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:305 — FunctionTooLong — fffExtension runs 770 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 670 over it, 7.70× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: fff_search::watcher::background_watcher::handle_debounced_events crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:328 — FunctionTooLong — fff_search::watcher::background_watcher::handle_debounced_events runs 262 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 162 over it, 2.62× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:672 — FunctionTooLong — fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner runs 215 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 115 over it, 2.15× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: fff_search::grep::fuzzy_grep::fuzzy_grep_search crates/fff-core/src/grep/fuzzy_grep.rs:13 — FunctionTooLong — fff_search::grep::fuzzy_grep::fuzzy_grep_search runs 212 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 112 over it, 2.12× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: fff_nvim::bin::grep_profiler::main crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:171 — FunctionTooLong — fff_nvim::bin::grep_profiler::main runs 209 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 109 over it, 2.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: fff_nvim::bin::grep_vs_rg::main crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:249 — FunctionTooLong — fff_nvim::bin::grep_vs_rg::main runs 153 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 53 over it, 1.53× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: fff_mcp::main crates/fff-mcp/src/main.rs:278 — FunctionTooLong — fff_mcp::main runs 136 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 36 over it, 1.36× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: fff_search::grep::grep::grep_search_parsed crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs:274 — FunctionTooLong — fff_search::grep::grep::grep_search_parsed runs 129 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.29× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: fff_c::fff_health_check crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1169 — FunctionTooLong — fff_c::fff_health_check runs 123 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.23× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: fff_search::score::fuzzy_match_and_score_dirs crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:455 — FunctionTooLong — fff_search::score::fuzzy_match_and_score_dirs runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: fff_search::grep::grep::perform_grep crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs:550 — FunctionTooLong — fff_search::grep::grep::perform_grep runs 108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.08× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×11

FileTooLong: src/file_picker.rs crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs — FileTooLong — 1455 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 955 over it, 2.91× 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/ffi.ts packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts — FileTooLong — 1279 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 779 over it, 2.56× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/ffi.ts packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts — FileTooLong — 1017 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 517 over it, 2.03× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 990 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 46 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 490 over it, 1.98× 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/index.ts packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts — FileTooLong — 960 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 80% of them inside a single declaration: fffExtension (305-1501). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 460 over it, 1.92× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/score.rs crates/fff-core/src/score.rs — FileTooLong — 858 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 358 over it, 1.72× 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/finder.rs crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs — FileTooLong — 832 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 87% of them inside a single declaration: FileFinder (3 blocks, 152-1082). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 332 over it, 1.66× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 778 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 32 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 278 over it, 1.56× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: index/bigram_filter.rs crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs — FileTooLong — 743 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 243 over it, 1.49× 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: watcher/background_watcher.rs crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs — FileTooLong — 674 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 174 over it, 1.35× 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/types.rs crates/fff-core/src/types.rs — FileTooLong — 666 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 166 over it, 1.33× 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · fff_search · ×7

fff_search::watcher::background_watcher::handle_debounced_events (cyclomatic 85) crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:328 — fff_search::watcher::background_watcher::handle_debounced_events has cyclomatic complexity 85 (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.
fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner (cyclomatic 46) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:672 — fff_search::score::match_and_score_in_arena_inner has cyclomatic complexity 46 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
fff_search::grep::fuzzy_grep::fuzzy_grep_search (cyclomatic 43) crates/fff-core/src/grep/fuzzy_grep.rs:13 — fff_search::grep::fuzzy_grep::fuzzy_grep_search has cyclomatic complexity 43 (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.
fff_search::grep::prefilter::prefilter_files (cyclomatic 31) crates/fff-core/src/grep/prefilter.rs:53 — fff_search::grep::prefilter::prefilter_files has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). Of this number, 30 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. 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.
fff_search::grep::grep::perform_grep (cyclomatic 27) crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs:550 — fff_search::grep::grep::perform_grep has cyclomatic complexity 27 (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.
fff_search::score::fuzzy_match_and_score_dirs (cyclomatic 19) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:455 — fff_search::score::fuzzy_match_and_score_dirs has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
fff_search::git_recency::compute_git_recency (cyclomatic 18) crates/fff-core/src/git_recency.rs:27 — fff_search::git_recency::compute_git_recency 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×7

TodoComment crates/fff-core/src/scan.rs:355 — // TODO Skipped as potentially unsafe - figure this out later — 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 crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:280 — // TODO remove this function and make a better way to remove all files — 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 crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1823 — // TODO make this O(n) — 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 crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:2017 — // TODO figure this out — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs:940 — // 32. TODO|FIXME|HACK — 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 crates/fff-core/src/simd_string_utils/memmem.rs:354 — // TODO convert all the supported backend by memchr and get rid of the fallback — 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 crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:818 — // TODO: figure out a better optimized way for zlob to rerun the directory walk using existing — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×7

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:166 — crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:166-175 | crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:403-412 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:199 — crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:199-208 | crates/fff-python/src/conversions.rs:13-22 — 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 (10 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/grep/sink.rs:115 — crates/fff-core/src/grep/sink.rs:115-124 | crates/fff-core/src/grep/sink.rs:140-149 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:501 — crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:501-510 | crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:697-706 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:386 — crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:386-395 | crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:438-447 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1258 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1258-1267 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1297-1306 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/dbs/query_tracker.rs:316 — crates/fff-core/src/dbs/query_tracker.rs:316-325 | crates/fff-core/src/dbs/query_tracker.rs:438-447 — 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 × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1393 — crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1393-1401 | crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1425-1433 — 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) crates/fff-core/src/grep/multi_pattern.rs:68 — crates/fff-core/src/grep/multi_pattern.rs:68-76 | crates/fff-core/src/grep/regex.rs:96-104 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:713 — crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:713-721 | crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:758-766 — 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) crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:405 — crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:405-413 | crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:651-659 — 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) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs:23 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs:23-31 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_memory_leak.rs:28-36 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs` and `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_memory_leak.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1290 — crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1290-1297 | crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1343-1350 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:345 — crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:345-352 | crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:469-476 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:69 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:69-76 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:94-101 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:766 — crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:766-773 | crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:822-829 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:624 — crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:624-631 | crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:691-698 — 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 · fff_nvim · ×4

fff_nvim::health_check (cognitive 27) crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:893 — fff_nvim::health_check has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (10 pts), if/else 5 (9 pts), loops 2 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 14). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
fff_nvim::bin::rescan_probe::main (cognitive 24) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/rescan_probe.rs:12 — fff_nvim::bin::rescan_probe::main has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), loops 3 (8 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.
fff_nvim::bin::grep_profiler::main (cognitive 22) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:171 — fff_nvim::bin::grep_profiler::main has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 12 (16 pts), if/else 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
fff_nvim::hex_dump::format_hex_dump (cognitive 16) crates/fff-nvim/src/hex_dump.rs:68 — fff_nvim::hex_dump::format_hex_dump has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (8 pts), loops 4 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:430 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:430-441 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:491-502 — 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) crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:415 — crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:415-426 | crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:661-672 — 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) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:331 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:331-342 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:379-390 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) crates/fff-python/src/conversions.rs:30 — crates/fff-python/src/conversions.rs:30-41 | crates/fff-python/src/conversions.rs:56-67 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×4

Off the main sequence: @ff-labs/fff-bun — @ff-labs/fff-bun: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: @ff-labs/fff-node — @ff-labs/fff-node: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: fff-search — fff-search: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: fff-query-parser — fff-query-parser: abstractness 0.13, instability 0.00, distance 0.88 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

R4 · Test Coverage · No test reaches this file · ×4

No test reaches this file packages/fff-bun/test.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file packages/fff-node/scripts/cli.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file packages/fff-node/scripts/postinstall.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file scripts/set-npm-version.mjs — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×3

Repeated repair: packages/pi-fff/src/aux-finders.ts packages/pi-fff/src/aux-finders.ts:126 — packages/pi-fff/src/aux-finders.ts changed 8 times in last 90 days and 7 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 10 (its worst body is aux-finders.resolveAuxRoot at line 126), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(pi): New database files are not created (#780)”; “fix(core): share one LMDB env per path within a process (#775)”; “fix(pi-fff): make home-dir scanning configurable, warn when indexing $HOME (#743) (#749)”; “fix: Reduce amount of rescans in giant /Users/neogoose like folders (#751)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- packages/pi-fff/src/aux-finders.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:355 — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is ffi.ffiCreate at line 355), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(sdk): decode FffGrepMatch and FffScore with the real C layout in fff-node and fff-bun (#891)”; “fix(grep): enforce_time_budget option for zero-match searches (#826) (#827)”; “fix: Reduce amount of rescans in giant /Users/neogoose like folders (#751)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: packages/fff-node/test/watch.mjs packages/fff-node/test/watch.mjs:79 — packages/fff-node/test/watch.mjs changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 4 (its worst body is (anonymous) at line 79), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(windows): rename events paths arrive correctly (#881)”; “fix(bun): Add a proper build step for fff-bun (#766)”; “fix(fff-mcp): compare CARGO_PKG_VERSION to stable release tag (#721) (#729)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-29..2026-09-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-29 16:43:19 -07:00' --until='2026-09-27 16:43:19 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- packages/fff-node/test/watch.mjs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · fff_mcp · ×3

fff_mcp::output::format_files_with_matches (cognitive 62) crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:377 — fff_mcp::output::format_files_with_matches has cognitive complexity 62 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (49 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 6 (nesting depth added 28). 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.
fff_mcp::main (cognitive 41) crates/fff-mcp/src/main.rs:278 — fff_mcp::main has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (29 pts), match/switch 5 (6 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 14). 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.
fff_mcp::healthcheck::run_healthcheck (cognitive 24) crates/fff-mcp/src/healthcheck.rs:14 — fff_mcp::healthcheck::run_healthcheck has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (22 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×3

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1357 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1357-1379 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1428-1447 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1539-1561 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1611-1633 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1390 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1390-1399 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1458-1467 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1571-1580 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1643-1652 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_grep_query.rs:76 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_grep_query.rs:76-140 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_search_only.rs:6-16 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:16-26 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:31-41 — 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 (14 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:889 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:889-902 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:913-926 — 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) crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:801 — crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:801-814 | crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:848-861 — 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) crates/fff-core/src/dbs/frecency.rs:286 — crates/fff-core/src/dbs/frecency.rs:286-300 | crates/fff-core/src/dbs/query_tracker.rs:283-296 — 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.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs:128 — crates/fff-core/src/grep/grep.rs:128-140 | crates/fff-core/src/grep/multi_pattern.rs:52-64 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:322 — crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:322-334 | crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:411-423 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs:177 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs:177-189 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_memory_leak.rs:78-90 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs` and `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_memory_leak.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:422 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:422-428 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:785-791 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs:615 — crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs:615-621 | crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs:650-656 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:174 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:174-180 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:251-257 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs` and `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 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 · fff_mcp · ×2

fff_mcp::output::format_files_with_matches (cyclomatic 29) crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:377 — fff_mcp::output::format_files_with_matches 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.
fff_mcp::main (cyclomatic 26) crates/fff-mcp/src/main.rs:278 — fff_mcp::main has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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 · fff_query_parser · ×2

fff_query_parser::parser::parse_token (cyclomatic 21) crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:270 — fff_query_parser::parser::parse_token has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.
fff_query_parser::parser::parse_token_without_negation (cyclomatic 18) crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:385 — fff_query_parser::parser::parse_token_without_negation 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · fff_c · ×2

fff_c::fff_create_instance_with (cyclomatic 18) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:183 — fff_c::fff_create_instance_with 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.
fff_c::fff_health_check (cyclomatic 16) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1169 — fff_c::fff_health_check 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · fff_c · ×2

fff_c::fff_health_check (cognitive 30) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1169 — fff_c::fff_health_check has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (20 pts), match/switch 5 (8 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
fff_c::fff_create_instance_with (cognitive 27) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:183 — fff_c::fff_create_instance_with has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (20 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BackgroundWatcher · ×2

BackgroundWatcher::create_debouncer (cognitive 25) crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:175 — BackgroundWatcher::create_debouncer has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BackgroundWatcher::new (cognitive 16) crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs:46 — BackgroundWatcher::new has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · fff_query_parser · ×2

fff_query_parser::parser::parse_token (cognitive 24) crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:270 — fff_query_parser::parser::parse_token has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fff_query_parser::parser::parse_token_without_negation (cognitive 23) crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:385 — fff_query_parser::parser::parse_token_without_negation has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), boolean chains 5, match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×2

TooManyMethods: FilePicker crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:589 — TooManyMethods — 64 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 34 over it, 2.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FileItem crates/fff-core/src/types.rs:248 — TooManyMethods — 39 methods, declared across 2 files: src/types.rs (33), src/file_picker.rs (6). The bar is 30 methods; this is 9 over it, 1.30× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×2

ClassTooLong: FilePicker crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:589 — ClassTooLong — 822 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 64 methods, 5 blocks, lines 589-1987. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 422 over it, 2.06× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: FileFinder crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:152 — ClassTooLong — 720 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 23 methods, 3 blocks, lines 152-1082. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 320 over it, 1.80× 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 · MethodTooLong · ×2

MethodTooLong: GrepFormatter.format crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:167 — MethodTooLong — format runs 137 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 37 over it, 1.37× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: FffServer.perform_grep crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:270 — MethodTooLong — perform_grep runs 113 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 13 over it, 1.13× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs:549 — crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs:549-569 | crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs:575-595 — 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 (21 lines × 2) crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:314 — crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:314-334 | crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:416-436 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:679 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:679-686 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:892-899 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:916-923 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:359 — crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:359-366 | crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:414-421 | crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:466-473 — 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 (6 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:287 — crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:287-292 | crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:461-466 | crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:637-642 — 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.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs:167 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs:167-172 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_memory_leak.rs:68-73 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_watcher.rs:18-23 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs` and `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_memory_leak.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:273 — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:273 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts: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.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1129 — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1129 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1273 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:497 — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:497 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:326 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1146 — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1146 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1287 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function multiGrep (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) · ×2

Complex function multiGrep (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:408 — multiGrep has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function multiGrep (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) packages/fff-node/src/finder.ts:414 — multiGrep has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function grep (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 12) · ×2

Complex function grep (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 12) packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:362 — grep has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function grep (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 12) packages/fff-node/src/finder.ts:368 — grep has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · index.fffExtension (cyclomatic 148) · ×1

index.fffExtension (cyclomatic 148) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:305 — index.fffExtension has cyclomatic complexity 148 (threshold 15). Of this number, 108 points are the body's own statements and 40 belong to 11 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GrepFormatter · ×1

GrepFormatter::format (cyclomatic 39) crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:167 — GrepFormatter::format has cyclomatic complexity 39 (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 · diagnose_lockmdb.main (cyclomatic 34) · ×1

diagnose_lockmdb.main (cyclomatic 34) scripts/diagnose_lockmdb.py:108 — diagnose_lockmdb.main has cyclomatic complexity 34 (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 · ScanJob · ×1

ScanJob::run (cyclomatic 23) crates/fff-core/src/scan.rs:152 — ScanJob::run has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · QueryParser · ×1

QueryParser::parse (cyclomatic 23) crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:60 — QueryParser::parse has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · query.normalizePathConstraint (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

query.normalizePathConstraint (cyclomatic 20) packages/pi-fff/src/query.ts:3 — query.normalizePathConstraint has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BigramIndexBuilder · ×1

BigramIndexBuilder::compress (cyclomatic 19) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs:376 — BigramIndexBuilder::compress 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 · FilePicker · ×1

FilePicker::for_each_dir (cyclomatic 18) crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:773 — FilePicker::for_each_dir 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · fff_nvim · ×1

fff_nvim::bin::grep_profiler::main (cyclomatic 17) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:171 — fff_nvim::bin::grep_profiler::main has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SinkState · ×1

SinkState::extract_context (cyclomatic 16) crates/fff-core/src/grep/sink.rs:95 — SinkState::extract_context 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · FffServer · ×1

FffServer::perform_grep (cyclomatic 16) crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:270 — FffServer::perform_grep 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · analyze-results.load_stream_trace (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

analyze-results.load_stream_trace (cyclomatic 16) scripts/analyze-results.py:47 — analyze-results.load_stream_trace 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · index.fffExtension (cognitive 163) · ×1

index.fffExtension (cognitive 163) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:305 — index.fffExtension has cognitive complexity 163 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 87 (102 pts), ternaries 24 (29 pts), boolean chains 24, error handling 5 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 23). Of this number, 121 points are the body's own statements and 42 belong to 11 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · diagnose_lockmdb.main (cognitive 71) · ×1

diagnose_lockmdb.main (cognitive 71) scripts/diagnose_lockmdb.py:108 — diagnose_lockmdb.main has cognitive complexity 71 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (32 pts), loops 9 (15 pts), ternaries 3 (12 pts), error handling 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 39). 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 · GrepFormatter · ×1

GrepFormatter::format (cognitive 65) crates/fff-mcp/src/output.rs:167 — GrepFormatter::format has cognitive complexity 65 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31 (46 pts), loops 6 (12 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · QueryParser · ×1

QueryParser::parse (cognitive 41) crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:60 — QueryParser::parse has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (33 pts), boolean chains 5, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FilePicker · ×1

FilePicker::for_each_dir (cognitive 39) crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:773 — FilePicker::for_each_dir has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (27 pts), loops 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FffServer · ×1

FffServer::perform_grep (cognitive 37) crates/fff-mcp/src/server.rs:270 — FffServer::perform_grep has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (31 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BigramIndexBuilder · ×1

BigramIndexBuilder::compress (cognitive 32) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs:376 — BigramIndexBuilder::compress has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (20 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SinkState · ×1

SinkState::extract_context (cognitive 30) crates/fff-core/src/grep/sink.rs:95 — SinkState::extract_context has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ScanJob · ×1

ScanJob::run (cognitive 29) crates/fff-core/src/scan.rs:152 — ScanJob::run has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (16 pts), boolean chains 8, match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WatchRegistry · ×1

WatchRegistry::dispatch (cognitive 27) crates/fff-core/src/watcher/watch.rs:468 — WatchRegistry::dispatch has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (18 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SharedEnv · ×1

SharedEnv::get_or_open (cognitive 24) crates/fff-core/src/dbs/env_pool.rs:63 — SharedEnv::get_or_open has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · analyze-results.load_stream_trace (cognitive 23) · ×1

analyze-results.load_stream_trace (cognitive 23) scripts/analyze-results.py:47 — analyze-results.load_stream_trace has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WatchSub · ×1

WatchSub::filter_mask (cognitive 22) crates/fff-core/src/watcher/watch.rs:200 — WatchSub::filter_mask has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 6 (11 pts), if/else 4 (10 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PathShortenStrategy · ×1

PathShortenStrategy::shorten_path (cognitive 22) crates/fff-nvim/src/path_shortening.rs:127 — PathShortenStrategy::shorten_path has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), match/switch 4 (5 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · query.normalizePathConstraint (cognitive 20) · ×1

query.normalizePathConstraint (cognitive 20) packages/pi-fff/src/query.ts:3 — query.normalizePathConstraint has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (15 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CallbackDispatcher · ×1

CallbackDispatcher::start (cognitive 16) crates/fff-core/src/watcher/watch.rs:274 — CallbackDispatcher::start has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (9 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FileFinder · ×1

FileFinder::health_check (cognitive 16) crates/fff-python/src/finder.rs:958 — FileFinder::health_check has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (9 pts), if/else 7 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · analyze-results.load_iter_results (cognitive 16) · ×1

analyze-results.load_iter_results (cognitive 16) scripts/analyze-results.py:21 — analyze-results.load_iter_results has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), error handling 2 (5 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 return type for path lookup. One returns the item directly (implying it always exists or panics/returns default), while the other returns an Option. This creates confusion about whether the item is guaranteed to exist. · ×1

Inconsistent return type for path lookup. One returns the item directly (implying it always exists or panics/returns default), while the other returns an Option. This creates confusion about whether the item is guaranteed to exist. — Standardize on returning `Option<FileItem>` for both, or ensure the non-Option version has a clear invariant (e.g., 'must exist') and document it. Given the mutable variant returns Option, the immutable one likely should too. (signatures: FilePicker.get_file_by_path(path: impl AsRef<Path>): FileItem | FilePicker.get_mut_file_by_path(path: impl AsRef<Path>): Option<FileItem>)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Two constructors with significantly different signatures for the same type. `new_with_shared_state` is a specialized factory method that duplicates the intent of creating a FilePicker but requires internal shared state objects that are not present in the standard `new` constructor. This suggests `new` might be a convenience wrapper or that the shared state pattern is inconsistently applied. · ×1

Two constructors with significantly different signatures for the same type. `new_with_shared_state` is a specialized factory method that duplicates the intent of creating a FilePicker but requires internal shared state objects that are not present in the standard `new` constructor. This suggests `new` might be a convenience wrapper or that the shared state pattern is inconsistently applied. — If `new_with_shared_state` is the primary constructor, `new` should likely delegate to it or the API should expose a builder pattern that handles shared state internally. If they serve distinct lifecycle purposes, the naming should reflect that (e.g., `new` vs `from_shared_state`). (signatures: FilePicker.new(options: FilePickerOptions): Result<FilePicker, Error> | FilePicker.new_with_shared_state(shared_picker: SharedFilePicker, shared_frecency: SharedFrecency, options: FilePickerOptions): Result<FilePicker, Error>)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent method naming for search variants. `fuzzy_search` is the default, but `fuzzy_search_directories` and `fuzzy_search_mixed` are explicit. However, `fuzzy_search` takes a `query_tracker` while `fuzzy_search_directories` does not. The naming doesn't clearly indicate that `fuzzy_search` is 'files only' vs 'mixed'. · ×1

Inconsistent method naming for search variants. `fuzzy_search` is the default, but `fuzzy_search_directories` and `fuzzy_search_mixed` are explicit. However, `fuzzy_search` takes a `query_tracker` while `fuzzy_search_directories` does not. The naming doesn't clearly indicate that `fuzzy_search` is 'files only' vs 'mixed'. — Rename `fuzzy_search` to `fuzzy_search_files` for symmetry with `fuzzy_search_directories` and `fuzzy_search_mixed`, or use a single `search` method with an enum parameter specifying the scope (Files, Dirs, Mixed). (signatures: FilePicker.fuzzy_search(query: FFFQuery, query_tracker: QueryTracker, options: FuzzySearchOptions): SearchResult | FilePicker.fuzzy_search_directories(query: FFFQuery, options: FuzzySearchOptions): DirSearchResult | FilePicker.fuzzy_search_mixed(query: FFFQuery, query_tracker: QueryTracker, options: FuzzySearchOptions): MixedSearchResult)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Duplicate function signatures in the same module. The second signature uses an underscore-prefixed parameter `_bytes`, which in Rust usually indicates an unused variable, but having two functions with the same name and signature in the same scope is a compilation error or indicates a copy-paste error in the API surface provided. · ×1

Duplicate function signatures in the same module. The second signature uses an underscore-prefixed parameter `_bytes`, which in Rust usually indicates an unused variable, but having two functions with the same name and signature in the same scope is a compilation error or indicates a copy-paste error in the API surface provided. — Remove the duplicate signature. If one is intended to be a no-op or stub, it should have a different name or be removed entirely. (signatures: path_utils.nativize_slashes_in_place(bytes: &mut [u8]) | path_utils.nativize_slashes_in_place(_bytes: &mut [u8]))

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

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFunctions · ×1

TooManyFunctions: fff_c::accessors crates/fff-c/src/accessors.rs:20 — TooManyFunctions — 56 free functions. The bar is 30 free functions; this is 26 over it, 1.87× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×1

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unsound) · ×1

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×1

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 20 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 20 shared lines) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:346 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:346-402 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:482-528 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:548-603 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:670-720 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 20 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 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 (47–48 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (47–48 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_search_only.rs:67 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_search_only.rs:67-113 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/search_profiler.rs:89-136 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (47 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (47 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/simd_string_utils/memmem.rs:134 — crates/fff-core/src/simd_string_utils/memmem.rs:134-180 | crates/fff-core/src/simd_string_utils/memmem.rs:229-275 — 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 (40–41 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (40–41 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:307 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:307-346 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:352-392 — 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 (29–30 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (29–30 lines × 2) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:350 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:350-379 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:552-580 — 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 (30 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (30 lines × 2) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1270 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1270-1299 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1309-1338 — 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 (24–29 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (24–29 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:238 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:238-266 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:278-301 — 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 (25 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:346 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:346-370 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:394-418 — 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 (23–25 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23–25 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_search_only.rs:39 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_search_only.rs:39-63 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/search_profiler.rs:63-85 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:951 — crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:951-971 | crates/fff-nvim/src/lib.rs:981-1000 — 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 (18 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1362 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1362-1379 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1544-1561 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1616-1633 — 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) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:118 — crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:118-135 | crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:422-439 — 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 (17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/simd_string_utils/memmem.rs:88 — crates/fff-core/src/simd_string_utils/memmem.rs:88-104 | crates/fff-core/src/simd_string_utils/memmem.rs:192-208 — 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 (13–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:629 — crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:629-641 | crates/fff-core/src/score.rs:1110-1124 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:287 — crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:287-300 | crates/fff-query-parser/src/parser.rs:399-410 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 3) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:418 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:418-430 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:169-180 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:194-205 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs` and `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 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 (12–13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:418 — crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:418-430 | crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:454-465 — 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 (11–12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:377 — crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:377-387 | crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:2313-2324 — 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) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1358 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1358-1368 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1429-1439 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1540-1550 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1612-1622 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:348 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:348-358 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:484-494 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:550-560 — 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 (9–11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/dbs/frecency.rs:278 — crates/fff-core/src/dbs/frecency.rs:278-286 | crates/fff-core/src/dbs/frecency.rs:337-347 — 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 × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs:50 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs:50-60 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_memory_leak.rs:50-60 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/jemalloc_profile.rs` and `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_memory_leak.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 6) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:363 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:363-372 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:436-445 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:497-506 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:565-574 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:682-691 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:803-812 — all 6 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 (10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_search_only.rs:7 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_search_only.rs:7-16 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:17-26 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:32-41 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs` and `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 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 (9–10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 3) crates/fff-nvim/src/lua_types.rs:161 — crates/fff-nvim/src/lua_types.rs:161-170 | crates/fff-nvim/src/lua_types.rs:189-197 | crates/fff-nvim/src/lua_types.rs:216-224 — 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 (7–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–10 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1105 — crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1105-1114 | crates/fff-core/src/file_picker.rs:1193-1199 — 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 × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 5) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:347 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:347-355 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:483-491 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:549-557 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:671-679 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1075-1083 — all 5 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 (9 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1391 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1391-1399 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1459-1467 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1572-1580 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1644-1652 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1411 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1411-1419 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1591-1599 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1663-1671 — 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 (8 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_grep_query.rs:117 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_grep_query.rs:117-124 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/bench_search_only.rs:7-14 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs:17-24 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs:32-39 — before extracting anything, compare `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_profiler.rs` and `crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/grep_vs_rg.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 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 (7–8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:151 — crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:151-158 | crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:672-678 — 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 × 8) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 8) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:362 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:362-368 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:435-441 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:496-502 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:564-570 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:681-687 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:802-808 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:894-900 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:918-924 — all 8 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 (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs:626 — crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs:626-631 | crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_filter.rs:662-667 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:297 — crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:297-301 | crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:625-629 | crates/fff-c/src/ffi_types.rs:739-743 — 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 (9 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 6) crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:347 — crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:347-355 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:483-491 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:549-557 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:671-679 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:980-988 | crates/fff-c/src/lib.rs:1075-1083 — all 6 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 (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_memory_leak.rs:135 — crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_memory_leak.rs:135-139 | crates/fff-nvim/src/bin/test_watcher.rs:63-69 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplication concentrated across 2 sibling directories (7 clone groups) · ×1

Duplication concentrated across 2 sibling directories (7 clone groups) packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:37 — 7 duplicated blocks under packages/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories fff-bun, fff-node — 5 of them are reported below, and 2 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 7 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 7 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 7 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on.

R10 · Code Duplication · Wholesale file copy (190 identical lines × 2 files) · ×1

Wholesale file copy (190 identical lines × 2 files) packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:37 — packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:37 · packages/fff-node/src/finder.ts:35 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 190 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done.

R10 · Code Duplication · Wholesale file copy (68 identical lines × 2 files) · ×1

Wholesale file copy (68 identical lines × 2 files) packages/fff-bun/src/platform.ts:5 — packages/fff-bun/src/platform.ts:5 · packages/fff-node/src/platform.ts:5 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 68 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (52 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (52 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/download.ts:38 — packages/fff-bun/src/download.ts:38 · packages/fff-node/src/binary.ts:53 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (41 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (41 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1206 — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1206 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1316 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (30 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (30 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:955 — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:955 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1130 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (24 lines × 4 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:859 — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:859 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:927 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1024 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1102 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (24 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1349 — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1349 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1409 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:1144 — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:1144 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:1218 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:728 — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:728 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:918 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:959 — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:959 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1161 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:85 — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:85 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:117 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1446 — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1446 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1480 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:819 — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:819 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:948 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:982 — packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:982 · packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1173 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 4 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:427 — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:427 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:658 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:854 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:1020 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:696 — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:696 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:747 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 4 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:894 — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:894 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:985 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1064 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:1160 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:391 — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:391 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:150 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3 locations) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:679 — packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:679 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:889 · packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:1065 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) packages/pi-fff/src/paths.ts:45 — packages/pi-fff/src/paths.ts:45 · packages/pi-fff/src/paths.ts:53 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:303 — packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:303 · packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:319 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function execute (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 25) · ×1

Complex function execute (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 25) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1005 — execute has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 25; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function execute (cyclomatic 23, cognitive 23) · ×1

Complex function execute (cyclomatic 23, cognitive 23) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1198 — execute has cyclomatic complexity 23 and cognitive complexity 23; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function normalizePathConstraint (cyclomatic 21, cognitive 21) · ×1

Complex function normalizePathConstraint (cyclomatic 21, cognitive 21) packages/pi-fff/src/query.ts:3 — normalizePathConstraint has cyclomatic complexity 21 and cognitive complexity 21; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function main (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 27) · ×1

Complex function main (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 27) packages/fff-bun/test.ts:4 — main has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function create (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 16) · ×1

Complex function create (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 16) packages/fff-node/src/finder.ts:121 — create has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function create (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 15) · ×1

Complex function create (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 15) packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts:129 — create has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 15; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function parseMixedSearchResult (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 14) · ×1

Complex function parseMixedSearchResult (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 14) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:905 — parseMixedSearchResult has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function ffiCreate (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 13) · ×1

Complex function ffiCreate (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 13) packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts:534 — ffiCreate has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function handler (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 12) · ×1

Complex function handler (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 12) packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts:1452 — handler has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function ffiCreate (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 12) · ×1

Complex function ffiCreate (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 12) packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts:355 — ffiCreate has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R3 · Large Files · Large Files · ×1

Large Files — 6 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: packages/fff-node/src/ffi.ts (1721), packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts (1425), packages/pi-fff/src/index.ts (1323), packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts (691), packages/fff-node/src/finder.ts (670), packages/shared/fff-api.ts (612).

Minor — 10 finding(s)

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

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 24 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: crates/fff-core/src/score.rs, crates/fff-core/src/watcher/background_watcher.rs, packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts, crates/fff-core/src/watcher/watch.rs, crates/fff-core/src/index/bigram_query.rs, packages/fff-bun/src/finder.ts, crates/fff-core/src/scan.rs, crates/fff-c/src/watch.rs (+16 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 1 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (25 single-owned of 92 analysed files in total, 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; 92 of the 114 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

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

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 1 of 92 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; 92 of the 114 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: crates/fff-python/src/conversions.rs. Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 5/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `packages/fff-python`.

X9 · Subsumed condition operand · Subsumed condition operand · ×1

Subsumed condition operand crates/fff-core/tests/grep_integration.rs:1754 — `m.line_content.contains("abc_")` can never decide this `||` — every value satisfying `m.line_content.contains("abc_")` also satisfies `m.line_content.contains("abc")`, so the `||` chain is already decided by the latter. The expression is equivalent to the chain without it, which means it is wider than it reads. Delete the dead operand, or narrow the surviving one if IT is the accident.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-1bcd4efaeac641b38308f7b5500c1431/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-1bcd4efaeac641b38308f7b5500c1431/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	100	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	5	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 1 file(s) — `packages/fff-bun/src/ffi.ts` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a0eb51-c480-7c41-aa74-0ae8a1b68578 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

DmtrKovalenko/fff

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 · 58% · Adequate · gated by R3 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 66% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 71% · Strong ·

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D29 ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts