Public report of elixir-grpc/grpc, published 23 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 23 October 2026, 16:10 UTC · Survey ID cd_398064edcc4f4afbb20e9b916aa41ba4

elixir-grpc/grpc

Measured 23 October 2026, 16:07 UTC, at code version 26bd3ec

No regression since the last survey Supply-chain provenance & signing: not measured

A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.

Supply-chain provenance & signing is not measured: Supply-chain provenance is not scored (this pipeline releases no artifact), but its build steps or GitHub Actions workflows have integrity defects, or nothing watches its dependency set for published advisories.

CAI score 61out of 100 Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Up 1 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Architecture 86 Strong Security and Compliance 78 Strong Code Health 74 Strong Maturity 65 Adequate Production Readiness 50 Adequate

A small codebase: 11,562 lines of product code in 5 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 50

Findings by how serious they are

26 critical 41 serious 47 minor

27 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
23 October 2026, 16:07 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

36of 39 dimensions measured by tools. The other 3 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
81of 114 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 33 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
39dimensions across 5 lenses, read from 11,562 lines of product code in 5 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

elixir-grpc/grpc scores 61 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its five lenses score higher still: Architecture at 86, Security and Compliance at 78 and Code Health at 74, all rated Strong, and Maturity at 65, rated Adequate.

The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 50 and is rated Adequate. Its REDACTED Scanning dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning and to resolve the 2 Unbounded dependency requirement finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 61 to about 69.

26 findings are critical: 17 in Static Analysis (SAST), four in Secrets (history), three in Dependency Vulnerabilities and two in REDACTED Scanning.

Watchdog couldn't measure 26 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and Internal API Consistency, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 11,562 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €29,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 74 Strong Architecture 86 Strong Maturity 65 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 50 Adequate, capped by REDACTED Scanning and Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 78 Strong

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Production Readiness 50 · counts for 47%Maturity 65 · counts for 26%Code Health 74 · counts for 14%Security and Compliance 78 · counts for 8%Architecture 86 · counts for 4%

If Production Readiness rose from 50 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 61 to about 69.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 43%Tests 57%
New since the last survey: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding wasn't in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026.

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and is gone from this one.

  • Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €29,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€9,700 to €49,000, for 161 to 512 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemStandard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×0.8 at a score of 61. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
SizeSmall: 11,562 lines of product code

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

1
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2).
Raises the score by about 11 points · Low effort · REDACTED Scanning
2
Resolve the 2 Unbounded dependency requirement finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
Raises the score by about 7 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene
3
Record your significant design decisions.
Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Raises the score by about 4 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €29,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 50 (Adequate). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 11 points for low effort, because it clears the 2 REDACTED Scanning findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

arch grpc grpc grpc_core grpc_core grpc_server grpc_server interop interop interop->grpc interop->grpc_server

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

44 modules, with 17 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 4 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 (global)2 Benchmark3 Benchmark.Stats4 GRPC5 GRPC.Client6 GRPC.Client.Adapters.Gun7 GRPC.Client.Adapters.Mint8 GRPC.Client.Adapters.Mint.ConnectionProcess9 GRPC.Client.Connection10 GRPC.Client.Resolver.DNS11 GRPC.Google12 GRPC.Protoc13 GRPC.Protoc.Generator14 GRPC.Server15 GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy16 GRPC.Server.Router17 GRPC.Stream18 GRPC.Transport19 Grpc.Core20 Grpc.Testing21 Grpc.Testing.ClientConfigureRequest22 Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerAccumulatedStatsResponse23 Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerAccumulatedStatsResponse.MethodStats24 GRPC.Client.Adapters25 GRPC.Client.Interceptors26 GRPC.Client.LoadBalancing27 GRPC.Client.Resolver28 GRPC.Codec29 GRPC.Compressor30 GRPC.Server.Adapters31 GRPC.Server.Interceptors32 Grpc.Testing.BenchmarkService33 Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerStatsService34 Grpc.Testing.ReconnectService35 Grpc.Testing.TestService36 Grpc.Testing.UnimplementedService37 Grpc.Testing.WorkerService38 Grpc.Testing.XdsUpdateClientConfigureService39 Grpc.Testing.XdsUpdateHealthService40 Interop
1 (global)
2 Benchmark
3 Benchmark.Stats
4 GRPC
5 GRPC.Client
6 GRPC.Client.Adapters.Gun
7 GRPC.Client.Adapters.Mint
8 GRPC.Client.Adapters.Mint.ConnectionProcess
9 GRPC.Client.Connection
10 GRPC.Client.Resolver.DNS
11 GRPC.Google
12 GRPC.Protoc
13 GRPC.Protoc.Generator
14 GRPC.Server
15 GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy
16 GRPC.Server.Router
17 GRPC.Stream
18 GRPC.Transport
19 Grpc.Core
20 Grpc.Testing
21 Grpc.Testing.ClientConfigureRequest
22 Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerAccumulatedStatsResponse
23 Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerAccumulatedStatsResponse.MethodStats
24 GRPC.Client.Adapters2
25 GRPC.Client.Interceptors1
26 GRPC.Client.LoadBalancing2
27 GRPC.Client.Resolver5
28 GRPC.Codec4
29 GRPC.Compressor1
30 GRPC.Server.Adapters1
31 GRPC.Server.Interceptors2
32 Grpc.Testing.BenchmarkService3
33 Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerStatsService2
34 Grpc.Testing.ReconnectService2
35 Grpc.Testing.TestService2
36 Grpc.Testing.UnimplementedService2
37 Grpc.Testing.WorkerService3
38 Grpc.Testing.XdsUpdateClientConfigureService2
39 Grpc.Testing.XdsUpdateHealthService2
40 Interop2
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 (global)2 Benchmark3 Benchmark.Stats4 GRPC5 GRPC.Client6 GRPC.Client.Adapters.Gun7 GRPC.Client.Adapters.Mint8 GRPC.Client.Adapters.Mint.ConnectionProcess9 GRPC.Client.Connection10 GRPC.Client.Resolver.DNS11 GRPC.Google12 GRPC.Protoc13 GRPC.Protoc.Generator14 GRPC.Server15 GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy16 GRPC.Server.Router17 GRPC.Stream18 GRPC.Transport19 Grpc.Core20 Grpc.Testing21 Grpc.Testing.ClientConfigureRequest22 Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerAccumulatedStatsResponse23 Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerAccumulatedStatsResponse.MethodStats24 GRPC.Client.Adapters25 GRPC.Client.Interceptors26 GRPC.Client.LoadBalancing27 GRPC.Client.Resolver28 GRPC.Codec29 GRPC.Compressor30 GRPC.Server.Adapters31 GRPC.Server.Interceptors32 Grpc.Testing.BenchmarkService33 Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerStatsService34 Grpc.Testing.ReconnectService35 Grpc.Testing.TestService36 Grpc.Testing.UnimplementedService37 Grpc.Testing.WorkerService38 Grpc.Testing.XdsUpdateClientConfigureService39 Grpc.Testing.XdsUpdateHealthService40 Interop(global)1Benchmark2Benchmark.Stats3GRPC4GRPC.Client5GRPC.Client.Adapters.Gun6GRPC.Client.Adapters.Mint7GRPC.Client.Adapters.Mint.ConnectionProcess8GRPC.Client.Connection9GRPC.Client.Resolver.DNS10GRPC.Google11GRPC.Protoc12GRPC.Protoc.Generator13GRPC.Server14GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy15GRPC.Server.Router16GRPC.Stream17GRPC.Transport18Grpc.Core19Grpc.Testing20Grpc.Testing.ClientConfigureRequest21Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerAccumulatedStatsResponse22Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerAccumulatedStatsResponse.MethodStats23GRPC.Client.Adapters24GRPC.Client.Interceptors25GRPC.Client.LoadBalancing26GRPC.Client.Resolver27GRPC.Codec28GRPC.Compressor29GRPC.Server.Adapters30GRPC.Server.Interceptors31Grpc.Testing.BenchmarkService32Grpc.Testing.LoadBalancerStatsService33Grpc.Testing.ReconnectService34Grpc.Testing.TestService35Grpc.Testing.UnimplementedService36Grpc.Testing.WorkerService37Grpc.Testing.XdsUpdateClientConfigureService38Grpc.Testing.XdsUpdateHealthService39Interop4021254112322223222+4 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 74% · Strong ·

The Good
D1 · Elixir Cyclomatic Complexity 8.9 D2 · Elixir Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · Elixir God Classes 9.3 D4 · Elixir Code Duplication 9.9 D17 · Elixir Explicit Debt 9.9 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0
The Ugly
X3 · Repo Exception handling 4.3

At a glance — Architecture · 86% · Strong ·

The Good
D6 · Elixir Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · Elixir Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Elixir Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 7.5 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0
The Bad
D5 · Elixir Coupling 6.0

At a glance — Maturity · 65% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good
D15 · Elixir Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Elixir Bus Factor 9.8 D19 · Elixir Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · Elixir Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Elixir Knowledge Freshness 7.6 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.7 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 9.3
The Ugly
M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 50% · Adequate · gated by D13, P3 ·

The Good
D12 · Elixir Dependency Hygiene 8.4 D14 · Elixir License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0
The Bad
P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0
The Ugly
D13 · Elixir REDACTED Scanning 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 78% · Strong ·

The Good
D29 · Elixir Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · Elixir Dependency Vulnerabilities 7.0 D31 · Elixir IaC & Container Security 9.8 D43 · Elixir Malicious Dependencies 10.0
The Bad
D28 · Elixir Secrets (history) 6.0
The Ugly
D37 · Elixir Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 4.0

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 categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2025 — Injection17High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures9High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures7High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration3Medium

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the two leaked secrets and unbounded dependency requirements to secure the codebase. Establish a draft release gate to prevent bad builds from reaching users, and document significant design decisions in a dedicated folder. Finally, enhance the overall documentation quality to ensure clear project overviews and usage instructions.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2).+11.0 ptsLowREDACTED Scanning
Resolve the 2 Unbounded dependency requirement finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+7.1 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.+3.7 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.+3.5 ptsMediumDeployment & Rollback
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10.+2.5 ptsMediumDocumentation Quality
Resolve the 11 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with grpc_stream_h.erl, client.ex, messages.pb.ex.+1.9 ptsMediumKnowledge Freshness
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)+1.8 ptsMediumException handling
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Vulnerability-disclosure Policy.+0.7 ptsLowVulnerability-disclosure Policy

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 19 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 5% slop · 69% mixed · 26% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED2.3SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedREDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedREDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED5.9MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED
grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
REDACTED6.9MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/stream_response_process.ex7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
grpc/test/grpc/adapters/mint/connection_process_test.exs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: HackComment
grpc_core/lib/grpc/transport/http2.ex7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: grpc_stream_h.info (cyclomatic 41)
grpc/lib/grpc/client/stream.ex8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/connection_process/connection_process.ex8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
interop/lib/interop/client.ex8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex8.5Near-cleanGod Classes: FileTooLong: client/connection.ex
grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/connection_process.ex8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (5 lines × 2)

How the grades work

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

Critical — 26

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 — 41

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 — 47

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

Could not be resolved — 27

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. 36 of 39 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — 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 — 39 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D21D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D37D43AX10AX3AX4M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P4P6X25X27X28X3

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
  1. 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, 81 of 114 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16984-0847-7751-a5e2-5f4bd5b5aa6f.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.ex, .exs) 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 — `mix test --cover` with `excoveralls` (`mix coveralls.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 — `mix test --cover` with `excoveralls` (`mix coveralls.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.
  • D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.ex, .exs) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (grpc/mix.exs), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
  • D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a REDACTED) is simply not read here yet.
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — 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. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (REDACTED). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Elixir, Erlang is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Elixir, Erlang is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
  • P8 Schema migrations — 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 EF Core usage in C# and the schema tooling its file scan recognises only, and no .NET project was loaded, and this repository's language is not one the scan models, 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.
  • X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, Rust, Swift, Ruby, Dart, PHP, Python and Go source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, Rust, Swift, Ruby, Dart, PHP, Python or Go was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust or Dart was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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 reads C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Swift and Dart syntax only, and no C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Swift or Dart 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.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

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

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was grpc_stream_h.info at 41.

grpc_stream_h.info (cyclomatic 41)grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl:135

What to do

  1. Bring the 1 body over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with grpc_stream_h.info (cyclomatic 41). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.9 to about 10.0/10.
  2. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

D3 · God Classes9.3 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

FileTooLong: client/connection.ex · ×2grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with connection.ex, handler.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Stronggated by 2 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2)grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/connection_process.ex:116
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl:337

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with connection_process.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with grpc_stream_h.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. 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.

D5 · Coupling6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 production modules (OTP), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 2 module(s) off the main sequence.

Off the main sequence: grpc_server · ×2

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 10 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

21 outdated, 0 retired direct Hex dependencies, 2 pinning defect(s). Whether any of these packages is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — hex.pm publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: a Hex app name does not determine the modules it provides (`ecto_sql` provides Ecto.Adapters.SQL), and a large idiomatic class of BEAM dependencies — runtime adapters, codec plugins, protocol implementations and OTP applications the release starts — is correctly declared and never referenced in source, so absence of a reference is not evidence of an unused dependency. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.

Unbounded dependency requirement: jason · ×2
Outdated: castore · ×21

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Unbounded dependency requirement finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D13 · REDACTED Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Enforce REDACTED Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

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

0 of 18 shipped Hex package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from hex.pm over the packages a consumer installs — this repository's REDACTED closed over the declarations its mix.exs files do not gate behind `only:`. Packages it asks for ONLY under `only: [:dev, :test]` (or any other non-prod environment, such as `:docs`) are excluded: they are not installed by anything that depends on this repository. Each licence is the one hex.pm publishes for the package's current release. This repository publishes itself under Apache-2.0, which is its own choice and is not judged here.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Stronggated by 12 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window. Repeated repair below the complexity floor: grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex (5 of 9 changes were fixes); grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/connection_process/connection_process.ex (4 of 6 changes were fixes); grpc/lib/grpc/stub.ex (4 of 5 changes were fixes)

Repeated repair: grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex · ×12grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex:286

What to do

  1. Resolve the 12 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with connection_process.ex (2), stream_response_process.ex (2), connection.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).

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

D16 · Bus Factor9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is grpc_core/lib/grpc/codec/json.ex. Counted over 47 of the 120 production source files in this repository: 72 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 1 have no attributable history left to measure.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Stronggated by 10 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

10 deducted task-comment markers across 11562 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.9. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×8grpc/lib/grpc/client/stream.ex:28
HackComment · ×2grpc/test/grpc/adapters/mint/connection_process_test.exs:270

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with stream_response_process.ex (2), http2.ex (2), stream.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with connection_process_test.exs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. 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.

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README (gRPC Elixir) and the benchmark/README give an overview of gRPC Elixir as a unified stream-based protocol implementation with installation, usage, and a table of contents; each subdirectory README documents its own directory. The grpc_core/README is a focused core package description rather than an overall project overview, but it does not contradict the root's scope.

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README (gRPC Elixir) and the benchmark/README give an overview of gRPC Elixir as a unified stream-based protocol implementation with installation, usage, and a table of contents; each subdirectory README documents its own directory. The grpc_core/README is a focused core package description rather than an overall project overview, but it does not contradict the root's scope.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

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.

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 5 build units (Mix) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: REDACTED 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 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Adequategated by 17 critical findings○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

17 finding(s): 0 critical, 17 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 17 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. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 17 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 (17 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities7.0 / 10Adequategated by 3 critical findings✓ 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 (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

9 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 6 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 6 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).

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

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.8 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (REDACTED/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

2 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 2 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness7.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

11 of 48 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl. Counted over 48 of the 120 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×11grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl:1
Orphaned files with no living knowledge

What to do

  1. Resolve the 11 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with grpc_stream_h.erl, client.ex, messages.pb.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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.

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is present but lists no reporting contact.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Vulnerability-disclosure Policy. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

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.

M1 · Documentation (README)8.7 / 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

  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

  • Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
M4 · Documentation accuracy9.3 / 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.

  • README.md links to `lib/grpc/stream.ex`, but `lib/grpc/stream.ex` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:153
  • benchmark/README.md links to `REFACTORING.md`, but `benchmark/REFACTORING.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — benchmark/README.md:72
  • grpc/README.md links to `grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex`, but `grpc/grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — grpc/README.md:128
  • grpc_server/README.md links to `grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex`, but `grpc_server/grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — grpc_server/README.md:339

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: README.md links to `lib/grpc/stream.ex`, but `lib/grpc/stream.ex` does not exist; benchmark/README.md links to `REFACTORING.md`, but `benchmark/REFACTORING.md` does not exist; grpc/README.md links to `grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex`, but `grpc/grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex` does not exist; grpc_server/README.md links to `grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex`, but `grpc_server/grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex` does not exist.
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.

P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

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

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

  • No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add sobelow (Elixir/Phoenix) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 5492 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: sobelow (Elixir/Phoenix) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
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

  • Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
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.

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a walk over an ETS table leaves the key it stands on alone — Erlang's own lists and maps are values no body can change, but an ETS key traversal asks the table for the key after the current one, so on a `set`, `bag` or `duplicate_bag` that is not fixed with `ets:safe_fixtable/2`, deleting the current key and then calling `ets:next/2` (or `ets:prev/2`) from it raises `badarg` and the rest of the table is never visited.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X3 · Exception handling4.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

  • `catch _:_` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl:51

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)

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.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health74%StrongSolid.
Architecture86%StrongStrongest area.
Maturity65%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness50%Adequate — gated by D13, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security78%StrongSolid.
Unscored — 2 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.

  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 1 observation(s) recorded · The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 3 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 79 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: the BEAM has no dependency-injection container — state lives in processes, and no process is handed an instance whose lifetime another one scopes.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Elixir processes share no mutable memory — state lives in a process's own mailbox — so there is no shared object to race on. Erlang processes share no mutable memory — state lives in a process's own mailbox — so there is no shared object to race on.
  • 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
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in an Ecto schema, an Ecto migration or an Ash resource — and no database or data-store client (an Ecto repo, Postgrex, MyXQL, Exqlite, Mongo, Mnesia, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
  • C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — this repository starts no server another machine can reach (no Phoenix.Endpoint, Plug.Cowboy or Bandit child). Access control is therefore N/A here — a library or OTP application is authorized by the application that serves it, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in an Ecto schema, an Ecto migration or an Ash resource — and no database or data-store client (Ecto, Postgrex, MyXQL, Mongo, EventStore, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in an Ecto schema, an Ecto migration or an Ash resource — and no database or data-store client (an Ecto repo, Postgrex, MyXQL, Exqlite, Mongo, Mnesia, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in an Ecto schema, an Ecto migration or an Ash resource — and no database or data-store client (an Ecto repo, Postgrex, MyXQL, Exqlite, Mongo, Mnesia, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~15050 lines of test source are present (.ex, .exs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — no .exs test runner
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.ex,.exs), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
  • D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.ex, .exs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (4 value object(s))
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
  • P2 Observability — This repository's Elixir, Erlang source (6 module(s), 94 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Elixir, Erlang source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
  • P8 Schema migrations — 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
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `mix test --cover` with `excoveralls` (`mix coveralls.lcov`)) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for Benchee jobs (the entries of a `Benchee.run` job map) or Benchfella `bench "…"` blocks under `use Benchfella` in any `.ex`/`.exs` file, or benchee or benchfella in a mix.exs, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Elixir runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: Elixir and Erlang has no async/await function colour, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface: 81 Elixir file(s) were read for weak hashes and ciphers, key material fixed in the source, disabled TLS certificate validation and obsolete TLS versions, and none was found. This repository builds on an HTTP-server library (grpc_server/mix.exs:39 — depends on `cowboy`) but serves no HTTP of its own: its production source starts no server (no `use Phoenix.Endpoint`, `{Plug.Cowboy, …}`, `{Bandit, …}`, `:cowboy.start_clear` or `:ranch.start_listener`), so it is a library whose server controls belong to the application that serves it — HTTPS enforcement, HSTS, cookie flags and input validation are N/A here, as they are for a C# library. If this codebase starts serving HTTP, the dimension reactivates automatically.
  • X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X12 Unreachable branch — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X13 Undrained process stream — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — Not applicable: this check looks for a pattern guard or `case` label that increments, decrements or assigns while the switch is deciding whether it matches, and in this repository's languages none can. An Elixir guard admits only guard-safe expressions — the compiler rejects anything else — and a bound value is never mutated in place. An Erlang guard admits only comparisons, arithmetic and guard BIFs — the compiler rejects anything with an effect — and a variable is bound exactly once. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — Not applicable: this check looks for a method whose returned value contradicts the flag its `finally` reads to decide whether to give back a lock it took, and in this repository's languages the body cannot set a flag that its cleanup reads. Elixir does not carry it across: a variable rebound inside `try do` is a new binding its `after` never sees, so the body cannot record a handoff where the cleanup can read it. Erlang will not compile it: a variable bound inside `try` is "unsafe" in its `after` clause, so the body cannot record a handoff where the cleanup can read it. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Elixir processes share no heap: a value sent to another process arrives as a copy, so no collection is reachable from two processes at once. Erlang processes share no heap: a value sent to another process arrives as a copy, so no collection is reachable from two processes at once. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X31 Test-only surface in a production module — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X5 Nullable reference types — Not applicable: this check asks whether the null-typed discipline a language offers is switched on, and how much of that the assertion operator takes back, and in this repository's languages there is no such switch and no such operator. Elixir's `nil` is an atom in a dynamically typed language: `@spec`s are checked by an external analysis that has no nullability operator, so there is no null-typed discipline in the language to adopt. Erlang has no null: every variable is bound, absence is a value you pattern-match (`undefined`, `nil`, the error tuples), and there is no static type checker whose null warning could be turned on or off. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 26 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×4
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×3
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D13 · REDACTED Scanning · Leaked secret · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
Serious — 41 finding(s)
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×12
  • Repeated repair: grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex:286 — grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex changed 9 times in last 90 days and 5 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 Connection.connect at line 286), 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(client): harden supervised connection recovery edge cases (#583)”; “fix: recover supervised connections when the transport process dies (#568)”; “fix: remove dangling typespecs and absorb used types into callbacks (#573)”; “fix: stop leaking client supervisor children on failed and closed connections (#554)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex`: 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: grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/connection_process/connection_process.ex grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/connection_process/connection_process.ex:193 — grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/connection_process/connection_process.ex changed 6 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 5 (its worst body is ConnectionProcess.handle_info at line 193), 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/mint client side timeout (#571)”; “Fix Mint adapter: dead stream response process crashes the whole connection (#559)”; “Fix Mint adapter: BadMapError in State.stream_response_pid/2 (#556)”; “fix(grpc): remove specs and enforce compiler warnings (#552)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/connection_process/connection_process.ex`: 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: grpc/lib/grpc/stub.ex grpc/lib/grpc/stub.ex:290 — grpc/lib/grpc/stub.ex changed 5 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is Stub.call at line 290), 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(client): harden supervised connection recovery edge cases (#583)”; “fix: recover supervised connections when the transport process dies (#568)”; “fix: remove dangling typespecs and absorb used types into callbacks (#573)”; “fix(grpc): remove specs and enforce compiler warnings (#552)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc/lib/grpc/stub.ex`: 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: grpc_server/lib/grpc/server.ex grpc_server/lib/grpc/server.ex:268 — grpc_server/lib/grpc/server.ex changed 4 times in last 90 days and 4 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 Server.do_handle_request at line 268), 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: remove dangling typespecs and absorb used types into callbacks (#573)”; “fix(grpc): remove specs and enforce compiler warnings (#552)”; “Fix Elixir 1.20 compiler warnings and upgrade dependencies (#539)”; “fix: limit request body size (#542)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc_server/lib/grpc/server.ex`: 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: grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/connection_process.ex grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/connection_process.ex:81 — grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/connection_process.ex 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 6 (its worst body is ConnectionProcess.init at line 81), 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(gun): Monitor gun to prevent sending messages to dead processes (#586)”; “fix(gun): scope named connection processes to the local node (#580)”; “fix(grpc): remove specs and enforce compiler warnings (#552)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/connection_process.ex`: 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: grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex:139 — grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex 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 8 (its worst body is Resolver.init at line 139), 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: remove dangling typespecs and absorb used types into callbacks (#573)”; “fix(grpc): remove specs and enforce compiler warnings (#552)”; “Fix Elixir 1.20 compiler warnings and upgrade dependencies (#539)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex`: 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: grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex:155 — grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex 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 8 (its worst body is Handler.extract_http_method at line 155), 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: remove dangling typespecs and absorb used types into callbacks (#573)”; “fix(grpc): remove specs and enforce compiler warnings (#552)”; “fix: limit request body size (#542)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex`: 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: grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint.ex grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint.ex:191 — grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint.ex changed 3 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 5 (its worst body is Mint.do_receive_data at line 191), 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(mint): return raw connect errors, not strings (#584)”; “Fix/mint client side timeout (#571)”; “fix: Return a GRPC.RPCError in mint adapter (#545)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint.ex`: 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: grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/stream_response_process.ex grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/stream_response_process.ex:187 — grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/stream_response_process.ex changed 3 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 StreamResponseProcess.handle_continue at line 187), 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/mint client side timeout (#571)”; “Fix Mint adapter: dead stream response process crashes the whole connection (#559)”; “fix(grpc): remove specs and enforce compiler warnings (#552)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/stream_response_process.ex`: 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: grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/stream_response_process.ex grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/stream_response_process.ex:36 — grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/stream_response_process.ex changed 3 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 6 (its worst body is StreamResponseProcess.handle_call at line 36), 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: remove dangling typespecs and absorb used types into callbacks (#573)”; “fix(grpc): remove specs and enforce compiler warnings (#552)”; “fix(gun): map connection-level errors to internal status (#548)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/stream_response_process.ex`: 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: grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex:13 — grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex changed 3 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 1 (its worst body is Transcode.map_request at line 13), 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: remove dangling typespecs and absorb used types into callbacks (#573)”; “fix(grpc): remove specs and enforce compiler warnings (#552)”; “fix: path params should take precedence (#541)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex`: 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: grpc_server/lib/grpc/protoc/cli.ex grpc_server/lib/grpc/protoc/cli.ex:115 — grpc_server/lib/grpc/protoc/cli.ex changed 3 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 3 (its worst body is CLI.parse_param at line 115), 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: make GRPC.Stub generation opt-out for server-only protoc runs (#553)”; “fix(grpc): remove specs and enforce compiler warnings (#552)”; “fix: safer decoding for erlpack codec (#540)”. 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 2026-06-10..2026-09-08, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-10 11:46:33 -03:00' --until='2026-09-08 11:46:33 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- grpc_server/lib/grpc/protoc/cli.ex`: 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.
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×8
  • TodoComment grpc/lib/grpc/client/stream.ex:28 — # TODO: it's better to get canceled status from adapter — 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 grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/stream_response_process.ex:18 — # TODO: Refactor the GenServer.call/3 occurrences on this module to produce — 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 grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/stream_response_process.ex:217 — # TODO: add code here to handle compressor headers — 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 grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/mint/connection_process/connection_process.ex:104 — # TODO add a code to if disconnect is brutal we just stop if is friendly we wait for pending requests — 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 grpc_core/lib/grpc/transport/http2.ex:70 — # TODO: grpc-accept-encoding, grpc-message-type — 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 grpc_core/lib/grpc/transport/http2.ex:71 — # TODO: Authorization — 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 grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex:390 — # TODO Compress — 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 interop/lib/interop/client.ex:21 — # TODO — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×6
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Unbounded dependency requirement · ×2
  • Unbounded dependency requirement: jason — Runtime dependency `:jason` is declared `">= 0.0.0"` in grpc_core/mix.exs, which has no upper bound — every future MAJOR release of `:jason` satisfies it, so the next unlocked resolve can pull a breaking change. Use `~>` (e.g. `"~> 1.0"`) to bound the requirement to a compatible range.
  • Unbounded dependency requirement: statix — Runtime dependency `:statix` is declared `">= 1.2.1"` in interop/mix.exs, which has no upper bound — every future MAJOR release of `:statix` satisfies it, so the next unlocked resolve can pull a breaking change. Use `~>` (e.g. `"~> 1.0"`) to bound the requirement to a compatible range.
D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×2
  • HackComment grpc/test/grpc/adapters/mint/connection_process_test.exs:270 — # hacky to simulate a window size of zero since this is usually updated with the requests interaction — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
  • HackComment grpc/test/grpc/adapters/mint/connection_process_test.exs:284 — # hacky to simulate a window size of 2 bytes since this is usually updated with the requests interaction — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2
  • FileTooLong: client/connection.ex grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex — FileTooLong — 849 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 71 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 349 over it, 1.70× 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: cowboy/handler.ex grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex — FileTooLong — 549 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 37 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.10× 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.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2
  • Off the main sequence: grpc_server — grpc_server: abstractness 0.12, instability 0.00, distance 0.88 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: grpc — grpc: abstractness 0.21, instability 0.00, distance 0.79 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · grpc_stream_h.info (cyclomatic 41) · ×1
  • grpc_stream_h.info (cyclomatic 41) grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl:135 — grpc_stream_h.info has cyclomatic complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/connection_process.ex:116 — grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/connection_process.ex:116-120 | grpc/lib/grpc/client/adapters/gun/connection_process.ex:126-130 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl:337 — grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl:337-343 | grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl:348-354 — 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.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×1
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl:51 — `catch _:_` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Minor — 26 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×11
  • Orphaned file grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file interop/lib/interop/client.ex:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file interop/lib/grpc_testing/messages.pb.ex:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy.ex:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file grpc_core/lib/grpc/status.ex:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file benchmark/lib/benchmark/client_manager.ex:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file interop/lib/grpc_testing/test.pb.ex:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file grpc_server/lib/grpc/endpoint.ex:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file interop/lib/interop/server.ex:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file benchmark/lib/benchmark/stats/histogram.ex:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file grpc/lib/grpc/client/interceptors/logger.ex:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×4
  • README/code drift README.md:153 — README.md links to `lib/grpc/stream.ex`, but `lib/grpc/stream.ex` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift benchmark/README.md:72 — benchmark/README.md links to `REFACTORING.md`, but `benchmark/REFACTORING.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift grpc/README.md:128 — grpc/README.md links to `grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex`, but `grpc/grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift grpc_server/README.md:339 — grpc_server/README.md links to `grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex`, but `grpc_server/grpc/lib/grpc/client/resolver.ex` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×3
  • Duplicated predicate grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex:1228 — `node(pid) == node() and Process.alive?(pid)` appears character-identically in 2 files — grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex, grpc/lib/grpc/stub.ex. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex:1378 — `uri.scheme == @insecure_scheme and uri.host` appears character-identically in 2 files — grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex, grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection/endpoint_resolver.ex. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex:1374 — `uri.scheme == @secure_scheme and uri.host` appears character-identically in 2 files — grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection.ex, grpc/lib/grpc/client/connection/endpoint_resolver.ex. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 1 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: grpc_core/lib/grpc/codec/json.ex. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1
  • Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 11 of 48 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; 48 of the 120 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: grpc_server/src/grpc_stream_h.erl, interop/lib/interop/client.ex, interop/lib/grpc_testing/messages.pb.ex, grpc_core/lib/grpc/status.ex, grpc_server/lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy.ex, benchmark/lib/benchmark/client_manager.ex, interop/lib/grpc_testing/test.pb.ex, grpc_server/lib/grpc/endpoint.ex (and 3 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · 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.
M3 · Folder & project structure · No src/ separation · ×1
  • No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1
  • No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add sobelow (Elixir/Phoenix) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 5492 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
Minor — 21 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×21
  • Outdated: castore — `:castore` is locked at 1.0.19 but 1.0.22 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.0"` requirement declared in grpc/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update castore` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: cowboy — `:cowboy` is locked at 2.16.0 but 2.20.0 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 2.14"` requirement declared in grpc_server/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update cowboy` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: cowlib — `:cowlib` is locked at 2.17.1 but 2.21.0 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 2.14"` requirement declared in grpc_server/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update cowlib` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: ex_doc — `:ex_doc` is locked at 0.40.3 but 0.40.4 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.40"` requirement declared in grpc/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update ex_doc` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: ex_doc — `:ex_doc` is locked at 0.40.3 but 0.40.4 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.40"` requirement declared in grpc_server/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update ex_doc` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: ex_doc — `:ex_doc` is locked at 0.40.3 but 0.40.4 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.40"` requirement declared in grpc_core/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update ex_doc` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: gun — `:gun` is locked at 2.2.0 but 2.7.0 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 2.0"` requirement declared in benchmark/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update gun` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: gun — `:gun` is locked at 2.4.1 but 2.7.0 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 2.0"` requirement declared in grpc_server/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update gun` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: gun — `:gun` is locked at 2.4.1 but 2.7.0 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 2.0"` requirement declared in interop/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update gun` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: makeup — `:makeup` is locked at 1.2.1 but 1.2.3 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.2.1"` requirement declared in grpc_server/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update makeup` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: makeup — `:makeup` is locked at 1.2.1 but 1.2.3 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.2.1"` requirement declared in grpc_core/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update makeup` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: makeup_syntect — `:makeup_syntect` is locked at 0.1.4 but 0.1.5 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.1"` requirement declared in grpc_server/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update makeup_syntect` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: makeup_syntect — `:makeup_syntect` is locked at 0.1.4 but 0.1.5 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.1"` requirement declared in grpc_core/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update makeup_syntect` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: mint — `:mint` is locked at 1.9.0 but 1.11.0 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.5"` requirement declared in interop/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update mint` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: mint — `:mint` is locked at 1.9.0 but 1.11.0 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.9"` requirement declared in grpc/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update mint` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: mox — `:mox` is locked at 1.2.0 but 1.3.2 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.2"` requirement declared in grpc_server/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update mox` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: mox — `:mox` is locked at 1.2.0 but 1.3.2 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.2"` requirement declared in grpc/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update mox` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: protobuf — `:protobuf` is locked at 0.17.0 but 0.17.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.17"` requirement declared in benchmark/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update protobuf` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: protobuf — `:protobuf` is locked at 0.17.0 but 0.17.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.17"` requirement declared in interop/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update protobuf` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: protobuf — `:protobuf` is locked at 0.17.0 but 0.17.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.17"` requirement declared in grpc_core/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update protobuf` and commit the updated REDACTED.
  • Outdated: protobuf — `:protobuf` is locked at 0.17.0 but 0.17.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.17"` requirement declared in grpc_server/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update protobuf` and commit the updated REDACTED.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-779efa65fc6b4c879d52efe636df1f8d/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .4artifacts/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-779efa65fc6b4c879d52efe636df1f8d/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .2artifacts/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 .17artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .9artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .2artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
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.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-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 Confinementruntime-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 Enforcementruntime-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 Dependenciesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .0artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a16984-0847-7751-a5e2-5f4bd5b5aa6f · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 26 · Warnings: 41 · Recommendations: 26 · Info: 21 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-10-2026 @ 16:07 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md