expert-lsp/expert

Executive summary

expert-lsp/expert scores 73 out of 100 and is rated Strong, while five of its six lenses score higher still: Performance at 95 and Code Health at 91, both rated Exemplary, Security and Compliance at 87 and Architecture at 83, both rated Adequate, and Production Readiness at 79, rated Strong. The project hasn't declared a stable release yet, so its lenses are rated against a lower bar than a released product's, while the score itself is worked out as for any repository.

The score is lower than those five because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Maturity, which scores 62 and is rated Adequate. Its Architecture documentation dimension scores 2 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Maturity can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to record your significant design decisions, and if Maturity rose to 70, the score would rise from 73 to about 77.

No finding in this survey is critical.

Watchdog couldn't measure 27 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 47,166 lines, which would take an estimated 0.9 person-years, around €130,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 91 ★ Exemplary Architecture 83 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 62 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 79 Strong Security and Compliance 87 Adequate, capped by Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Performance 95 ★ Exemplary

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.

Maturity 62 · counts for 46%Production Readiness 79 · counts for 25%Architecture 83 · counts for 14%Security and Compliance 87 · counts for 8%Code Health 91 · counts for 4%Performance 95 · counts for 2%

If Maturity rose from 62 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 73 to about 77.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 51%Tests 49%

New since the last survey: 1 finding

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

Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED

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: 8 findings

These 8 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/requires.ex
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex
Explicit Debt · TodoComment apps/engine/lib/engine/mix.tasks.deps.safe_compile.ex
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: EEF-[CVE redacted] REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: EEF-[CVE redacted] REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: EEF-[CVE redacted] apps/expert/mix.lock

Rebuild cost: about €130,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€44,000 to €220,000, for 726 to 2,302 hours of work, about 0.9 person-years for 1 to 2 engineers
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×1.1 at a score of 73. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 47,166 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.

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

Raises the score by about 10 points · Low effort · ADR Quality

Record your significant design decisions.

Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

Raises the score by about 10 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10.

Raises the score by about 3 points · Medium effort · Documentation Quality

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 €130,000 to build again, about 0.9 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Maturity, at 62 (Adequate). Maturity is about how well the project explains and looks after itself, which decides whether a new developer, or a new supplier, can take over. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Maturity also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Maturity grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Maturity actions in Top priorities.

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 10 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

Architecture: 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.

111 modules, with 24 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; 71 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)	7 Engine.Build.Document	9 Engine.CodeAction	11 Expert.CodeIntelligence.Completion	12 Expert.Provider	13 Expert.Search.Store	14 Forge	15 Forge.Ast	16 Forge.Protocol	27 Forge.Document
1 (global)
2 Elixir
3 Engine.Analyzer
4 Engine.Api
5 Engine.Api.Proxy
6 Engine.Build
7 Engine.Build.Document
8 Engine.Build.Error
9 Engine.CodeAction
10 Engine.CodeIntelligence
11 Expert.CodeIntelligence.Completion
12 Expert.Provider
13 Expert.Search.Store
14 Forge
15 Forge.Ast
16 Forge.Protocol
17 Engine							1
18 Engine.Build.Document.Compilers		5
19 Engine.CodeAction.Handlers			8
20 Enumerable	3
21 Enumerable.Forge.Document	1
22 Expert							1
23 Expert.CodeIntelligence.Completion.Translatable				1
24 Expert.Provider.Handlers					17
25 Expert.Search.Store.Backends						1
26 Forge.Ast.Detection								14
27 Forge.Document							6
28 Forge.Protocol.Convertible									3
29 Forge.Protocol.Convertible.Forge									1
30 Forge.Protocol.Convertible.Forge.Document									5
31 Forge.Protocol.Convertible.GenLSP.Structures									5
32 Forge.Refactor.Alias							5
33 Forge.Refactor.Constant							2
34 Forge.Refactor.Function							7
35 Forge.Refactor.Guard							2
36 Forge.Refactor.IfElse							2
37 Forge.Refactor.Pipeline							4
38 Forge.Refactor.Variable							3
39 Forge.Search.Indexer							1
40 Forge.Document.Container										1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

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

The Good

D2 · Elixir Cognitive Complexity 7.2 D3 · Elixir God Classes 8.6 D4 · Elixir Code Duplication 9.5 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 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0

The Bad

D1 · Elixir Cyclomatic Complexity 6.3

At a glance — Architecture · 83% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good

D5 · Elixir Coupling 7.3 D6 · Elixir Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.6 D27 · Elixir Navigability 9.6 D35 · Elixir Change Coupling 9.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0

The Ugly

D26 · Elixir Project Cohesion 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 62% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Elixir Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Elixir Bus Factor 9.4 D19 · Elixir Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · Elixir Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Elixir Knowledge Freshness 9.6 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.7 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Ugly

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

At a glance — Readiness · 79% · Strong ·

The Good

D12 · Elixir Dependency Hygiene 9.2 D13 · Elixir Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Elixir License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 7.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 7.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

At a glance — Security · 87% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Elixir Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · Elixir Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · Elixir Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.8 D43 · Elixir Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Elixir Platform End-of-Life 10.0

The Ugly

D36 · Elixir Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5

At a glance — Performance · 95% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 9.5

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	4	Medium

Roadmap

First, resolve the missing Architecture Decision Records by documenting significant design choices with their context and consequences in a dedicated folder. Next, reorganize the project structure to group production code under a src directory, separating it from tooling and test files. Finally, enhance the documentation quality by adding a clear Testing section to the root README that explains how to run the test suite.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+9.9 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+9.6 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10.	+3.1 pts	Medium	Documentation Quality
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion.	+1.1 pts	Low	Project Cohesion
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.	+2.0 pts	Medium	Folder & project structure
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling.	+0.7 pts	Low	Coupling
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.	+1.2 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Resolve the 7 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with deps.ex (2), hex.ex, api.ex.	+0.6 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 40 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 0% slop · 15% mixed · 85% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
apps/forge/src/future_elixir.erl	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
apps/forge/src/future_elixir_errors.erl	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
apps/engine/benchmarks/data/enum.ex	6.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
apps/forge/lib/future/code.ex	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
apps/expert/lib/expert/port.ex	7.0	Near-clean	God Classes: TooManyFunctions: Port
apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex	7.0	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (39–41 lines × 2)
apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex	7.0	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (20–22 lines × 2)
apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex	7.1	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (21 lines × 2)
apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex	7.1	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (13–17 lines × 2)
apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/beams.ex	7.2	Near-clean	God Classes: FileTooLong: indexer/beams.ex
apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/definition.ex	7.2	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)
apps/engine/test/engine/code_action/handlers/replace_with_underscore_test.exs	7.3	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
apps/engine/test/engine/code_action/handlers/replace_remote_function_test.exs	7.3	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex	7.4	Near-clean	God Classes: FileTooLong: backends/sqlite.ex
apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/aliases.ex	7.4	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (19 lines × 2)
apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store.ex	7.8	Near-clean	God Classes: TooManyFunctions: Store
apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex	7.8	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)
REDACTED	7.9	Near-clean	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED

How the grades work

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

Critical — 0

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 112

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 — 39

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

Could not be resolved — 28

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. 39 of 42 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 — 42 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D20D21D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36D43D44AX10AX3AX4M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6PF1X25X27X28X3

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 123 of 151 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a1699f-7a81-7e4d-8b7f-bc9cd29d3bdc.

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 (.exs, .ex) 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 (.exs, .ex) 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: 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.
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.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. 'Exqlite' is imported (apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:597), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. 'Exqlite' is imported (apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:597), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. 'Exqlite' is imported (apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:597), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. 'Exqlite' is imported (apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:597), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
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 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
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.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
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 Complexity6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize at 258. A further 8 function(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being future_elixir_tokenizer.prune_tokens at 30 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 4 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: apps/expert/lib/expert.ex (Expert.fetch_handler at 21), apps/forge/lib/future/code/fragment.ex (Fragment.position_surround_context at 20), apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/completion/builder.ex (Builder.prefix_length at 19), apps/forge/lib/future/code/identifier.ex (Identifier.binary_op at 18). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize (cyclomatic 258)apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:140

future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_unicode (cyclomatic 114)apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl:229

future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_hex (cyclomatic 111)apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl:190

future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_dot (cyclomatic 50)apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:875

future_elixir.env_for_eval (cyclomatic 31)apps/forge/src/future_elixir.erl:212

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

What to do

Bring the 1 body over 120 down to 120 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize (cyclomatic 258). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 6.3 to about 7.1/10.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize at 153.

future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize (cognitive 153)apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:140

future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_unicode (cognitive 106)apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl:229

future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_hex (cognitive 102)apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl:190

future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_dot (cognitive 40)apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:875

future_elixir.env_for_eval (cognitive 16)apps/forge/src/future_elixir.erl:212

What to do

Bring the 5 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize (cognitive 153), future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_unicode (cognitive 106), future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_hex (cognitive 102). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 5 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 7.2 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

FileTooLong: src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl · ×7apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl

TooManyFunctions: future_elixir_errors · ×7apps/forge/src/future_elixir_errors.erl:7

What to do

Resolve the 7 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with future_elixir_tokenizer.erl, sqlite.ex, beams.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with future_elixir_errors.erl, port.ex, store.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 50 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

50 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×7apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/definition.ex:111

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×6apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:149

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×6apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:45

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×4apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:338

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:441

+ 20 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 7 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with definition.ex (2), imports.ex (2), aliases.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with imports.ex (2), definition.ex (2), analyzer.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with imports.ex (2), fuzzy.ex (2), aliases.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 production modules (OTP), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence.

Off the main sequence: forge

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.6 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 55 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: State (LCOM4 8) · ×2apps/expert/lib/expert/state.ex:1

What to do

Resolve the 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with state.ex, build.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

17 outdated, 0 retired direct Hex dependencies, 0 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.

Outdated: benchee · ×17

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 24 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. A further 1 package(s) the closure reaches resolve from git, a path or a local override and publish no licence this pass can read; they are outside this verdict.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Stronggated by 4 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

Top hotspots: apps/expert/lib/expert.ex (6×21=126) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: apps/engine/lib/engine/compilation/tracer.ex (3 of 5 changes were fixes); apps/expert/lib/expert/project/diagnostics/state.ex (3 of 4 changes were fixes); apps/engine/lib/engine/code_mod/format/cache.ex (3 of 3 changes were fixes)

Repeated repair: apps/engine/lib/engine/compilation/tracer.ex · ×3apps/engine/lib/engine/compilation/tracer.ex:19

Hotspot: apps/expert/lib/expert.exapps/expert/lib/expert.ex:542

What to do

Resolve the 3 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with tracer.ex, state.ex, cache.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with expert.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.4 / 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

10 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is apps/engine/lib/engine/code_intelligence/heex.ex. Counted over 160 of the 361 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Stronggated by 24 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

24 deducted task-comment markers across 47166 LoC (0.0/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 · ×23apps/engine/benchmarks/data/enum.ex:2404

HackCommentapps/engine/lib/engine/completion.ex:121

What to do

Resolve the 23 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with enum.ex (6), future_elixir_tokenizer.erl (5), future_elixir.erl (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with completion.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

Expert's root README is a well-written overview of the project (what it does and its release process) with installation, nightly builds, source-building, and sponsorship sections. It also documents each subdirectory as an application (apps/engine/README.md through apps/expert/test/fixtures/umbrella/README.md), covering their purposes without overpromising. The architecture document is a comprehensive Architecture section plus the full outline Overview, Project Structure, LSP Implementation, Code Intelligence, Entry, Forge.Ast.Analysis, Project Compilation, Namespacing, Manager-Engine Distribution, and Project Versions; it is well written and complete for its scope. Both documents are strong.

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — Expert's root README is a well-written overview of the project (what it does and its release process) with installation, nightly builds, source-building, and sponsorship sections. It also documents each subdirectory as an application (apps/engine/README.md through apps/expert/test/fixtures/umbrella/README.md), covering their purposes without overpromising. The architecture document is a comprehensive Architecture section plus the full outline Overview, Project Structure, LSP Implementation, Code Intelligence, Entry, Forge.Ast.Analysis, Project Compilation, Namespacing, Manager-Engine Distribution, and Project Versions; it is well written and complete for its scope. Both documents are strong.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 of 3 build units (Mix) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

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

0 % of calls cross a namespace and 7 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `apps/expert/priv/port_wrapper.sh` (line 15) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

7 of 160 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/hex.ex. Counted over 160 of the 361 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×7apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/hex.ex:1

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: function_reference.ex↔module.ex 64%; port.ex↔build_engine.exs 50%

Change coupling: function_reference.ex ↔ module.ex · ×2apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/function_reference.ex:1

What to do

Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with function_reference.ex, port.ex. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 2 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

Record 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 all sits under apps/ alongside the root build files, so the conventional src/ boundary between the product and its tooling isn't drawn.

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	91%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	83%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	62%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	79%	Strong	Solid.
Security	87%	Adequate — gated by D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	95%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

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

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

X10 Duplicated predicate — 5 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

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

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

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'Exqlite' (apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:597) but declares no persisted model this check reads (Ecto schema fields, Ecto migration columns, Ash resource attributes). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so whether its changes need an audit trail could not be established, and the trail's absence is not scored.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'Exqlite' (apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:597) but declares no persisted model this check reads (Ecto schema fields, Ecto migration columns, Ash resource attributes). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so whether a retention limit applies here could not be established, and its absence is not scored.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'Exqlite' (apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:597) but declares no persisted model this check reads (Ecto schema fields, Ecto migration columns, Ash resource attributes). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so whether data-subject rights apply here could not be established, and their absence is not scored.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 73 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
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'Exqlite' (apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:597) but declares no persisted model this check reads (Ecto schema fields, Ecto migration columns, Ash resource attributes). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so the absence of a personal-data field here is not evidence that none is stored, and encryption at rest is not scored over a subject that could not be established.
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.
D10 Test Quality — ~45040 lines of test source are present (.exs, .ex) 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.
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
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
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 (.exs, .ex) 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 (13 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'.
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
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Elixir and Erlang 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: 352 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 serves no HTTP of its own — no Phoenix, Plug, Cowboy, Bandit or Thousand Island among its `mix.exs` dependencies outside a test- or dev-only scope, and no endpoint or server started in its production source — so HTTPS enforcement, HSTS, cookie flags and input validation are N/A here, as they are for a C# library or worker. If this codebase starts serving HTTP, the dimension reactivates automatically.
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.

Serious — 112 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×23

TodoComment apps/engine/benchmarks/data/enum.ex:2404 — # TODO: Deprecate me in Elixir v1.18. — 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 apps/engine/benchmarks/data/enum.ex:4469 — # TODO: Deprecate me in Elixir v1.18. — 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 apps/engine/benchmarks/data/enum.ex:4545 — # TODO: Deprecate me in Elixir v1.18. — 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 apps/engine/benchmarks/data/enum.ex:2972 — # TODO: Deprecate negative steps on Elixir v1.16 — 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 apps/engine/benchmarks/data/enum.ex:2973 — # TODO: Support negative steps as a reverse on Elixir v2.0. — 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 apps/engine/benchmarks/data/enum.ex:2987 — # TODO: Remove me on v2.0 — 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 apps/engine/test/engine/code_action/handlers/replace_with_underscore_test.exs:148 — # TODO: Fix this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment apps/engine/test/engine/code_action/handlers/replace_remote_function_test.exs:82 — # TODO: Fix this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment apps/engine/test/engine/code_action/handlers/replace_remote_function_test.exs:199 — # TODO: Fix this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment apps/engine/test/engine/code_action/handlers/replace_with_underscore_test.exs:176 — # TODO: fix — 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 apps/forge/lib/future/code.ex:1631 — # TODO: Make this option have no effect on Elixir v2.0 — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:260 — %% TODO: Remove me in Elixir v2.0 — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:270 — %% TODO: Remove me in Elixir v2.0 — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:852 — %% TODO: Remove these deprecations on Elixir v2.0 — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:1686 — % TODO: Turn into an error on v2.0 — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:1696 — %% TODO: Turn into an error on v2.0 — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl:38 — %% TODO: Remove this on Elixir v2.0 — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl:194 — %% TODO: Remove deprecated sequences on v2.0 — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir_errors.erl:20 — %% TODO: Remove me on Elixir v2.0. — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir.erl:19 — %% TODO: Remove char_list type on v2.0 — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir.erl:30 — %% TODO: Remove Erlang/OTP 26+ checks — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir.erl:181 — %% TODO: Delete prim_tty branches on Erlang/OTP 26. — 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 apps/forge/src/future_elixir.hrl:11 — %% TODO: Remove warn and everywhere it is set in v2.0 — 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.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×7

FileTooLong: src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl — FileTooLong — 1408 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 80 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 908 over it, 2.82× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: backends/sqlite.ex apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex — FileTooLong — 1066 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 128 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 566 over it, 2.13× 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: indexer/beams.ex apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/beams.ex — FileTooLong — 769 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 80 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 269 over it, 1.54× 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: tasks/format.ex apps/forge/lib/future/mix/tasks/format.ex — FileTooLong — 645 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 145 over it, 1.29× 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: code/fragment.ex apps/forge/lib/future/code/fragment.ex — FileTooLong — 637 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 36 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 137 over it, 1.27× 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: future/code.ex apps/forge/lib/future/code.ex — FileTooLong — 558 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 60 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 58 over it, 1.12× 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: translations/macro.ex apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/completion/translations/macro.ex — FileTooLong — 535 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 35 over it, 1.07× 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.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFunctions · ×7

TooManyFunctions: future_elixir_errors apps/forge/src/future_elixir_errors.erl:7 — TooManyFunctions — 46 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 16 over it, 1.53× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: Port apps/expert/lib/expert/port.ex:1 — TooManyFunctions — 41 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 11 over it, 1.37× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: Store apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store.ex:1 — TooManyFunctions — 40 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: Ast apps/forge/lib/forge/ast.ex:1 — TooManyFunctions — 40 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: EngineApi apps/expert/lib/expert/engine_api.ex:1 — TooManyFunctions — 34 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: Project apps/forge/lib/forge/project.ex:1 — TooManyFunctions — 32 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: Entity apps/engine/lib/engine/code_intelligence/entity.ex:1 — TooManyFunctions — 31 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×7

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/definition.ex:111 — apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/definition.ex:111-116 | apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/references.ex:225-230 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/aliases.ex:59 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/aliases.ex:59-64 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/aliases.ex:59-64 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/aliases.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/aliases.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:81 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:81-86 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex:113-118 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:251 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:251-257 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex:217-222 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/definition.ex:99 — apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/definition.ex:99-104 | apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/references.ex:90-95 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) apps/forge/lib/forge/ast/parser/elixir.ex:7 — apps/forge/lib/forge/ast/parser/elixir.ex:7-12 | apps/forge/lib/forge/ast/parser/spitfire.ex:52-57 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:61 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:61-66 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex:94-99 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:149 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:149-155 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex:181-187 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/definition.ex:72 — apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/definition.ex:72-78 | apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/references.ex:66-72 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex:193 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex:193-199 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analyzer.ex:231-237 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analyzer.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 54 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:254 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:254-260 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex:301-307 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/beams.ex:163 — apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/beams.ex:163-169 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/sources.ex:72-78 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/definition.ex:89 — apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/definition.ex:89-95 | apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/references.ex:80-86 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:45 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:45-49 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex:50-54 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/code_mod/aliases.ex:54 — apps/engine/lib/engine/code_mod/aliases.ex:54-58 | apps/engine/lib/engine/code_mod/requires.ex:36-40 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:261 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:261-265 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex:226-230 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:285 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:285-294 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex:241-245 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) apps/forge/lib/forge/refactor/pipeline/introduce_io_inspect.ex:42 — apps/forge/lib/forge/refactor/pipeline/introduce_io_inspect.ex:42-46 | apps/forge/lib/forge/refactor/variable/extract_variable.ex:209-218 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:90 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:90-94 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex:122-126 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:338 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:338-347 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex:276-285 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:302 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:302-311 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex:251-260 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:197 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:197-208 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:176-185 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store.ex:23 — apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store.ex:23-32 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:75-84 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

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

Repeated repair: apps/engine/lib/engine/compilation/tracer.ex apps/engine/lib/engine/compilation/tracer.ex:19 — apps/engine/lib/engine/compilation/tracer.ex changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 3 (its worst body is Tracer.extract_module_updated at line 19), 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: diagnostics take a long time to update (#871)”; “fix: index macro-generated definitions from compiler traces (#856)”; “fix: incorrect undefined protocol function diagnostic (#820)”. 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 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 21:45:55 -03:00' --until='2026-10-22 21:45:55 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- apps/engine/lib/engine/compilation/tracer.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: apps/expert/lib/expert/project/diagnostics/state.ex apps/expert/lib/expert/project/diagnostics/state.ex:131 — apps/expert/lib/expert/project/diagnostics/state.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 4 (its worst body is State.clear_flushed at line 131), 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: clear stale diagnostics as you type (#878)”; “fix: properly handle typespec errors; prevent diagnostics crash (#879)”; “fix: don't discard multiple diagnostics from file and project compilation (#841)”. 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 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 21:45:55 -03:00' --until='2026-10-22 21:45:55 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- apps/expert/lib/expert/project/diagnostics/state.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: apps/engine/lib/engine/code_mod/format/cache.ex apps/engine/lib/engine/code_mod/format/cache.ex:66 — apps/engine/lib/engine/code_mod/format/cache.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 Cache.fetch_formatter at line 66), 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: resolve the right formatter for each file (#880)”; “chore(revert): prevent formatter cache from forgetting the formatter for a path (#831) (#875)”; “fix: prevent formatter cache from forgetting the formatter for a path (#831)”. 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 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 21:45:55 -03:00' --until='2026-10-22 21:45:55 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- apps/engine/lib/engine/code_mod/format/cache.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.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:441 — apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:441-449 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:518-526 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex:29 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex:29-37 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analyzer.ex:48-56 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analyzer.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 54 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex:203 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex:203-211 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analyzer.ex:241-249 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analyzer.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 54 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2

Change coupling: function_reference.ex ↔ module.ex apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/function_reference.ex:1 — `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/function_reference.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex` change together 64% of the time (7 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `e32f7060` feat: implement call hierarchy (#891); `71c33f10` fix: handle missing metadata in indexer extractors (#390) (at that commit the files were still `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/indexer/extractors/function_reference.ex` and `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex`); `5461cff6` Increased type detail (#734) (at that commit the files were still `apps/remote_control/lib/lexical/remote_control/search/indexer/extractors/function_reference.ex` and `apps/remote_control/lib/lexical/remote_control/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: port.ex ↔ build_engine.exs apps/expert/lib/expert/port.ex:1 — `apps/expert/lib/expert/port.ex` and `apps/expert/priv/build_engine.exs` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `2b307c9e` fix: engine build crashes when changing tooling versions (#710); `d795c709` fix: correctly handle port lines when building the engine (#463); `3205d564` fix: isolate engine builds and retry them on dependency errors (#454) — run `git show` on any of them.

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

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/uses.ex:7 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/uses.ex:7-21 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/uses.ex:7-21 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/modules.ex:81 — apps/engine/lib/engine/modules.ex:81-95 | apps/engine/lib/engine/modules.ex:128-142 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:102 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:102-114 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:69-81 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:219 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:219-231 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:117-129 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:167 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:167-177 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex:204-214 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/beams.ex:542 — apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/beams.ex:542-552 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/beams.ex:590-600 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex:18 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex:18-25 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analyzer.ex:37-44 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analyzer.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 54 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/beams.ex:173 — apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/beams.ex:173-180 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/sources.ex:82-89 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×2

Low cohesion: State (LCOM4 8) apps/expert/lib/expert/state.ex:1 — State's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: Build (LCOM4 4) apps/engine/lib/engine/build.ex:1 — Build's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize (cyclomatic 258) · ×1

future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize (cyclomatic 258) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:140 — future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize has cyclomatic complexity 258 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_unicode (cyclomatic 114) · ×1

future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_unicode (cyclomatic 114) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl:229 — future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_unicode has cyclomatic complexity 114 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_hex (cyclomatic 111) · ×1

future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_hex (cyclomatic 111) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl:190 — future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_hex has cyclomatic complexity 111 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_dot (cyclomatic 50) · ×1

future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_dot (cyclomatic 50) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:875 — future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_dot has cyclomatic complexity 50 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · future_elixir.env_for_eval (cyclomatic 31) · ×1

future_elixir.env_for_eval (cyclomatic 31) apps/forge/src/future_elixir.erl:212 — future_elixir.env_for_eval has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · future_elixir_errors.parse_error (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

future_elixir_errors.parse_error (cyclomatic 21) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_errors.erl:315 — future_elixir_errors.parse_error has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · future_elixir_tokenizer.check_terminator (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

future_elixir_tokenizer.check_terminator (cyclomatic 16) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:1392 — future_elixir_tokenizer.check_terminator has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: future_elixir_tokenizer.prune_tokens (cyclomatic 30) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_strings (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_strings (cyclomatic 16) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:772 — future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_strings has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: future_elixir_tokenizer.prune_tokens (cyclomatic 30) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize_number (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize_number (cyclomatic 16) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:1113 — future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize_number has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: future_elixir_tokenizer.prune_tokens (cyclomatic 30) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×1

Hotspot: apps/expert/lib/expert.ex apps/expert/lib/expert.ex:542 — apps/expert/lib/expert.ex changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 21 in Expert.fetch_handler at line 542. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 5 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-24..2026-10-22, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-24 21:45:55 -03:00' --until='2026-10-22 21:45:55 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- apps/expert/lib/expert.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 · HackComment · ×1

HackComment apps/engine/lib/engine/completion.ex:121 — # HACK: This fixes ElixirSense struct completions for certain cases. — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize (cognitive 153) · ×1

future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize (cognitive 153) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:140 — future_elixir_tokenizer.tokenize has cognitive complexity 153 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 120, match/switch 20 (31 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 11). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_unicode (cognitive 106) · ×1

future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_unicode (cognitive 106) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl:229 — future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_unicode has cognitive complexity 106 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 106. This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_hex (cognitive 102) · ×1

future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_hex (cognitive 102) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_interpolation.erl:190 — future_elixir_interpolation.unescape_hex has cognitive complexity 102 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 102. This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_dot (cognitive 40) · ×1

future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_dot (cognitive 40) apps/forge/src/future_elixir_tokenizer.erl:875 — future_elixir_tokenizer.handle_dot has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 35, match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 2). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · future_elixir.env_for_eval (cognitive 16) · ×1

future_elixir.env_for_eval (cognitive 16) apps/forge/src/future_elixir.erl:212 — future_elixir.env_for_eval has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 13 (15 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 2). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (39–41 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (39–41 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:207 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:207-247 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex:175-213 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–32 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–32 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:729 — apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:729-760 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:764-771 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29–31 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (29–31 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:69 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:69-99 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex:65-93 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28–30 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (28–30 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:137 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:137-166 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex:116-143 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/completion/translations/module_attribute.ex:18 — apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/completion/translations/module_attribute.ex:18-44 | apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/completion/translations/module_attribute.ex:48-74 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20–22 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:185 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:185-204 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex:222-243 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex:98 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex:98-118 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analyzer.ex:136-156 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analyzer.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 54 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/aliases.ex:33 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/aliases.ex:33-51 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/aliases.ex:33-51 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/aliases.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/aliases.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/aliases.ex:9 — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/aliases.ex:9-25 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/aliases.ex:9-25 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/aliases.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/aliases.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–17 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:167 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:167-183 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:156-168 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex:157 — apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex:157-172 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex:189-204 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex:105 — apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex:105-117 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex:155-167 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/module.ex:187-199 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10–13 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:111 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex:111-123 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex:98-107 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/completion/builder.ex:46 — apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/completion/builder.ex:46-54 | apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/completion/builder.ex:67-77 — 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 (14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:79 — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:79-92 | apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:50-63 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex` and `apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) apps/forge/lib/forge/namespace/transform/apps.ex:7 — apps/forge/lib/forge/namespace/transform/apps.ex:7-12 | apps/forge/lib/forge/namespace/transform/boots.ex:6-11 | apps/forge/lib/forge/namespace/transform/scripts.ex:7-12 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: forge — forge: abstractness 0.04, instability 0.00, distance 0.96 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 2 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

Minor — 22 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×7

Orphaned file apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/hex.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 apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/hex/api.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 apps/engine/lib/engine/deps.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 apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/hex/cache.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 apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/completion/translations/hex_version.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 apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/hex/hover.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 apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/deps.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.

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×5

Duplicated predicate apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex:202 — `MapSet.member?(period_positions, first_match_position - 1) and match_end == subject_length` appears character-identically in 2 files — apps/engine/lib/engine/search/fuzzy/scorer.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/search/fuzzy/scorer.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 apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:244 — `String.starts_with?(string_name, "_") or sigil?(string_name, arity)` appears character-identically in 2 files — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.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 apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:250 — `String.starts_with?(string_name, "sigil_") and arity in [1, 2]` appears character-identically in 2 files — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.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 apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex:389 — `is_list(updated_entries) and is_list(paths_to_clear)` appears character-identically in 2 files — apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/backends/sqlite.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/search/store/state.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 apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex:48 — `is_list(use.imported_mfas) and Position.compare(use.range.end, position) in [:lt, :eq]` appears character-identically in 2 files — apps/engine/lib/engine/analyzer/imports.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/analysis/imports.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, 7 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/variable.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/variable.ex, apps/engine/lib/engine/code_mod/directives.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/extractors/ex_unit.ex, apps/forge/lib/forge/ast/analysis/state.ex, apps/forge/lib/forge/epmd.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/search/indexer/manifest_store.ex. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

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

Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 2 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (10 single-owned of 160 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 160 of the 361 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #3 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above. The files folded here: apps/engine/lib/engine/code_intelligence/heex.ex, apps/forge/lib/forge/document/line_parser.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/stdio/user.ex.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 3 of 3 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `apps/forge` (16028 LoC, 170 module-visible types across 35 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.

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

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 7 of 160 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; 160 of the 361 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: apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/hex.ex, apps/engine/lib/engine/deps.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/hex/api.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/hex/cache.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/completion/translations/hex_version.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/hex/hover.ex, apps/expert/lib/expert/code_intelligence/deps.ex. Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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 all sits under apps/ alongside the root build files, so the conventional src/ boundary between the product and its tooling isn't drawn.

Minor — 17 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×17

Outdated: benchee — `:benchee` is locked at 1.3.1 but 1.5.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.3"` requirement declared in apps/forge/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update benchee` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: burrito — `:burrito` is locked at 1.5.0 but 1.6.0 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.5"` requirement declared in apps/expert/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update burrito` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: deps_nix — `:deps_nix` is locked at 3.0.0 but 3.1.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 3.0"` requirement declared in apps/engine/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update deps_nix` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: deps_nix — `:deps_nix` is locked at 3.0.0 but 3.1.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 3.0"` requirement declared in apps/forge/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update deps_nix` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: deps_nix — `:deps_nix` is locked at 3.0.0 but 3.1.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 3.0"` requirement declared in apps/expert/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update deps_nix` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: hex_core — `:hex_core` is locked at 0.20.1 but 0.21.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.10"` requirement declared in apps/expert/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update hex_core` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: logger_backends — `:logger_backends` is locked at 1.0.0 but 1.0.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.0"` requirement declared in apps/engine/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update logger_backends` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: logger_backends — `:logger_backends` is locked at 1.0.0 but 1.0.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.0"` requirement declared in apps/forge/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update logger_backends` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: patch — `:patch` is locked at 0.15.0 but 0.16.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.15"` requirement declared in apps/expert/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update patch` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: patch — `:patch` is locked at 0.15.0 but 0.16.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.15"` requirement declared in apps/engine/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update patch` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: patch — `:patch` is locked at 0.15.0 but 0.16.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.15"` requirement declared in apps/forge/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update patch` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: quokka — `:quokka` is locked at 2.12.1 but 2.13.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 2.12"` requirement declared in apps/expert/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update quokka` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: quokka — `:quokka` is locked at 2.12.1 but 2.13.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 2.12"` requirement declared in apps/engine/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update quokka` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: quokka — `:quokka` is locked at 2.12.1 but 2.13.1 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 2.12"` requirement declared in apps/forge/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update quokka` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: schematic — `:schematic` is locked at 0.2.1 but 0.5.2 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 0.2"` requirement declared in apps/expert/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update schematic` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: stream_data — `:stream_data` is locked at 1.2.0 but 1.4.0 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.1"` requirement declared in apps/engine/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update stream_data` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: stream_data — `:stream_data` is locked at 1.1.3 but 1.4.0 is the current stable release on hex.pm, and it already satisfies the `"~> 1.1"` requirement declared in apps/forge/mix.exs — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `mix deps.update stream_data` 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.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-9638bb3f55624a27975cfb5243f388a3/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-9638bb3f55624a27975cfb5243f388a3/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	0	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	1	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a1699f-7a81-7e4d-8b7f-bc9cd29d3bdc · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

At a glance — Architecture · 83% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 62% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 79% · Strong ·

At a glance — Security · 87% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

At a glance — Performance · 95% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts