fatedier/frp

Executive summary

fatedier/frp scores 53 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged. 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 weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 40 and is rated Weak. Its Dependency Hygiene dimension scores 1 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 3 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene and to resolve the 2 Flaky test finding(s) in Test Reliability, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 53 to about 62.

38 findings are critical: 18 in Static Analysis (SAST), nine in Dependency Vulnerabilities, four in Dependency Hygiene, four in IaC & Container Security, two in Test Reliability and one in Keyboard semantics.

Watchdog couldn't measure 14 dimensions in this code, among them Documentation Quality, Internal API Consistency and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 30,814 lines, which would take an estimated 0.4 person-years, around €56,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 73 Strong Architecture 84 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 76 Strong Production Readiness 40 Weak, capped by Test Coverage, Dependency Hygiene and Outbound HTTP resilience Security and Compliance 60 Adequate, capped by Static Analysis (SAST), Dependency Vulnerabilities and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Accessibility 57 Adequate, capped by Keyboard semantics Performance 81 Strong

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

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Production Readiness 40 · counts for 46%Accessibility 57 · counts for 25%Security and Compliance 60 · counts for 14%Code Health 73 · counts for 8%Maturity 76 · counts for 4%Performance 81 · counts for 2%Architecture 84 · counts for 1%

If Production Readiness rose from 40 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 53 to about 62.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 53%Tests 47%

New since the last survey: 29 findings

These 29 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026.

Cyclomatic Complexity · Service.Run (cyclomatic 17) client/service.go
Cognitive Complexity · Service.Run (cognitive 22) client/service.go
Cognitive Complexity · Service.Run (cognitive 19) server/service.go
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) server/proxy/http.go
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) pkg/util/net/kcp.go
Test Reliability · Flaky test: .::github.com/fatedier/frp/server.TestNewServiceReleasesListenersOnWebServerFailure
Test Reliability · Flaky test: .::github.com/fatedier/frp/server.TestNewServiceReleasesListenersOnWebServerFailure/port_conflict
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: client/service.go client/service.go
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: server/proxy/udp.go server/proxy/udp.go
Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/frpc/src/views/VisitorDetail.vue
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue
Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED
Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/shared/components/ActionButton.vue
Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/shared/components/PopoverMenu.vue
Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/frps/src/App.vue
Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/frps/src/components/StatCard.vue
Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/frps/src/components/Traffic.vue
Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/frpc/src/App.vue
Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/frpc/src/components/ConfigSection.vue

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: 38 findings

These 38 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) server/proxy/http.go
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair: client/service.go client/service.go
Static Analysis (SAST) · High: REDACTED REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · High: REDACTED REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · High: REDACTED REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · High: REDACTED REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · High: REDACTED REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · High: REDACTED REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · High: REDACTED REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · High: REDACTED REDACTED
Static Analysis (SAST) · High: REDACTED REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frps/src/utils/format.ts
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorFormLayout.vue
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyRemoteSection.vue
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyAuthSection.vue
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorBaseSection.vue
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyTransportSection.vue
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/utils/format.ts
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/types/constants.ts
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frps/src/api/client.ts
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/stores/client.ts
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyHttpSection.vue
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorTransportSection.vue
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyLoadBalanceSection.vue
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyMetadataSection.vue
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyNatSection.vue
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/main.ts
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frps/src/main.ts
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/composables/useResponsive.ts
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frps/src/composables/useResponsive.ts
Test Coverage · No test reaches this file web/frps/src/api/server.ts

Rebuild cost: about €56,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€19,000 to €93,000, for 310 to 983 hours of work, about 0.4 person-years for one engineer
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	×0.7 at a score of 53. 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: 30,814 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 3 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

Raises the score by about 8 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Resolve the 2 Flaky test finding(s) in Test Reliability.

Raises the score by about 6 points · Low effort · Test Reliability

Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.

Raises the score by about 5 points · Medium effort · Dependency Hygiene

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 €56,000 to build again, about 0.4 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 40 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

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

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

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 3 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 8 points for low effort, because it clears the 3 Dependency Hygiene 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: 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.

88 modules, with 139 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 6 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 48 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 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/config/types	2 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/policy/security	3 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/proto/wire	4 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/transport	5 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/util/xlog	6 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/metrics	9 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/config/v1	10 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/metrics/mem	11 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/ports	12 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/http/model	13 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/config/source	14 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/config/v1/validation	15 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/plugin/server	16 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/plugin/visitor	17 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/util/http	18 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/vnet	19 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/msg	20 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/plugin/client	21 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/util/net	22 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/util/vhost	23 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/event	24 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/visitor	25 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/auth	26 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/config	27 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/nathole	28 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/group	29 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/visitor	30 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/proxy	31 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/controller	32 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/configmgmt	33 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/proxy	34 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/http	36 github.com/fatedier/frp/client	38 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/virtual	39 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/ssh
1 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/config/types
2 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/policy/security
3 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/proto/wire
4 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/transport
5 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/util/xlog
6 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/metrics
7 web.frpc.src.types.proxy-store
8 web.frps.src.api
9 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/config/v1	2																10
10 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/metrics/mem						2
11 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/ports	1
12 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/http/model							15
13 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/config/source							13
14 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/config/v1/validation		2					30
15 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/plugin/server					1		2
16 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/plugin/visitor					1		1									1
17 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/util/http							3
18 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/vnet							1							1
19 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/msg			4													1
20 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/plugin/client							10									1												4
21 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/util/net					1											6
22 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/util/vhost																1
23 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/event																	2
24 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/visitor				3			10							1		3	3		1
25 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/auth							11										21
26 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/config	2						9										1
27 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/nathole				1													9
28 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/group									2											11
29 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/visitor																1			2
30 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/proxy				3	2		9									4	9	2			2
31 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/controller									1				1							2					1	4	1
32 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/configmgmt							2																					1
33 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/proxy					2		13						3				8			1									3
34 github.com/fatedier/frp/client/http										1					1													1		2
35 github.com/fatedier/frp/server/http							4	2							2																1
36 github.com/fatedier/frp/client		2	2	1	1		7				5				2	3	10					1	3					5		2		1
37 github.com/fatedier/frp/cmd/frpc/sub		1					5				1	1												1									1
38 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/virtual							2										1		2														2
39 github.com/fatedier/frp/pkg/ssh							3												3									2						1
40 github.com/fatedier/frp/server			3	1	1	1	3						3		2		10		1	1			2						2		5				1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 73% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · Go Cyclomatic Complexity 7.1 D3 · Go God Classes 9.2 D4 · Go Code Duplication 9.4 D17 · Go Explicit Debt 10.0 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 10.0 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 8.3 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 8.7 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 9.5 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 9.6 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 6.9 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0

The Bad

D2 · Go Cognitive Complexity 6.2 R3 · React / TS Large Files 6.3 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 6.0

At a glance — Architecture · 84% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good

D5 · Go Coupling 10.0 D6 · Go Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.8 D35 · Go Change Coupling 10.0 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 10.0

The Bad

AX10 · Repo Code composition 6.5

The Ugly

D26 · Go Project Cohesion 3.3

At a glance — Maturity · 76% · Strong ·

The Good

D15 · Go Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.8 D21 · Go Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Go Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 9.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 7.8

The Bad

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0

The Ugly

D20 · Go ADR Quality 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 40% · Weak · gated by R4, R8, P7 ·

The Good

D9 · Go Test Distribution 9.9 D10 · Go Test Quality 10.0 D12 · Go Dependency Hygiene 7.0 D13 · Go Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Go License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 10.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0 R5 · React / TS Dependency Freshness 7.9 R6 · React / TS Tooling 10.0

The Bad

D11 · Go Test Reliability 6.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 6.0

The Ugly

P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0 R4 · React / TS Test Coverage 1.3 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 1.0

At a glance — Security · 60% · Adequate · gated by D29, D30, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Go Secrets (history) 10.0 D31 · Go IaC & Container Security 8.1 D43 · Go Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Go Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0

The Ugly

D29 · Go Static Analysis (SAST) 1.3 D30 · Go Dependency Vulnerabilities 2.2 D36 · Go Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Accessibility · 57% · Adequate · gated by AC4 ·

The Good

AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 10.0 AC3 · Repo Page structure 10.0 AC5 · Repo ARIA correctness 10.0

The Bad

AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 4.5

The Ugly

AC4 · Repo Keyboard semantics 3.5 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 81% · Strong ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 8.5 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.7 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2025 — Injection	34	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	23	High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration	10	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, resolve stale dependency pins and flaky tests to stabilize the build and reduce maintenance overhead. Next, clean up the dependency tree by removing unused packages and explicitly declaring imports to improve clarity and security. Then, expand test coverage to include currently unreached production modules, ensuring broader validation of core functionality. Finally, harden outbound HTTP calls by enforcing timeouts, adding retries with back-off, and implementing circuit breakers to prevent cascading failures.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 3 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+8.2 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 2 Flaky test finding(s) in Test Reliability.	+6.1 pts	Low	Test Reliability
Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.	+4.9 pts	Medium	Dependency Hygiene
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).	+4.6 pts	Medium	Test Coverage
Give every `http.Client` an explicit `Timeout` (never call `http.Get`/`http.Post` or `http.DefaultClient`, which have none), or build each request with `http.NewRequestWithContext` under a `context.WithTimeout`; add retry with back-off (`hashicorp/go-retryablehttp`) and a breaker (`sony/gobreaker`) around dependencies that fail.	+3.1 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.	+1.9 pts	Medium	Keyboard semantics
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-vuejs-accessibility, then assert with vitest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.	+1.7 pts	Medium	A11y enforcement
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.	+1.6 pts	Medium	Visual & motion safety

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 71 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 6% slop · 12% mixed · 82% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.7	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.1	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.1	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
pkg/config/legacy/client.go	5.7	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: legacy.LoadAllProxyConfsFromIni (cyclomatic 19)
server/service.go	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
REDACTED	6.1	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.5	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.5	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
server/http/controller.go	7.0	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)
web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy (cyclomatic 57)
client/http/controller.go	7.1	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
server/http/controller_v2.go	7.1	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: http.buildV2ProxySpec (cyclomatic 17)
client/proxy/sudp.go	7.2	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: SUDPProxy.InWorkConn (cyclomatic 17)
client/config_manager.go	7.2	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): High: 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 — 38

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 — 281

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 — 60

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

Could not be resolved — 15

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. 78 of 80 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 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 — 80 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D20D21D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D43D44AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX10AX2AX3AX4M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6P7PF1PF2PF3R1R10R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X21X22X23X24X25X26X28X29X3X30X5

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, 332 of 379 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 · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16adb-2e27-7f56-b1f4-582caa8cfb6f.

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.

D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 14 test(s) behind this row are the ones the JavaScript/TypeScript census could read, and this repository also carries at least 165 test source file(s) (.go) that it cannot: it reads JavaScript/TypeScript test declarations off disk, so a JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its npm package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Go dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (153 contributor(s) across 1552 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 82% of the history; the other 152 hold 0.1% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (REDACTED), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `server/group/http.go`, `server/group/https.go`, `server/group/tcp.go`, `server/group/tcpmux.go` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via DevServer (dev). the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
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 this repository's Go, Vue components is most of its product and 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 this repository's Go, Vue components is most of its product and 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.
R4 Test Coverage — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 20 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 60.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found, and this repository's Go 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.
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 this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, 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.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
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.
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.
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.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
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 (REDACTED, 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.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
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 (2): D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

19 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy at 57.

proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy (cyclomatic 57)web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:10

proxy-converters.storeProxyToForm (cyclomatic 36)web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:328

server.NewService (cyclomatic 33)server/service.go:148

UDPProxy.Run (cyclomatic 27)server/proxy/udp.go:78

proxy-converters.formToStoreVisitor (cyclomatic 24)web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:170

+ 14 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 3 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy (cyclomatic 57), proxy-converters.storeProxyToForm (cyclomatic 36), server.NewService (cyclomatic 33). — 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 3 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 7.1 to about 7.8/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 30; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

38 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy at 80.

proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy (cognitive 80)web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:10

server.NewService (cognitive 50)server/service.go:148

UDPProxy.Run (cognitive 48)server/proxy/udp.go:78

nathole.MakeHole (cognitive 37)REDACTED:192

proxy-converters.storeProxyToForm (cognitive 35)web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:328

+ 33 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 1 body over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy (cognitive 80). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 6.2 to about 6.5/10.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.2 / 10Stronggated by 6 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 god class(es) detected.

TooManyFields: ServerCommonConf · ×2pkg/config/legacy/server.go:36

FileTooLong: server/service.go · ×2server/service.go

FunctionTooLong: server.NewServiceserver/service.go:148

MethodTooLong: UDPProxy.Runserver/proxy/udp.go:78

What to do

Resolve the 2 TooManyFields finding(s) in God Classes — start with REDACTED, client.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with service.go, control.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with service.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Stronggated by 43 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

41 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 2 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×6client/http/controller.go:243

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×5client/http/controller.go:249

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×4server/proxy/proxy.go:459

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4server/http/controller.go:118

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×4pkg/config/legacy/parse.go:82

+ 14 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED (2), udp_binary.go, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with REDACTED (2), auth.go, types.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with config_manager.go (2), proxy.go, kcp.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.8 / 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 138 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: StoreSource (LCOM4 9) · ×2pkg/config/source/store.go:36

What to do

Resolve the 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with store.go, REDACTED. — 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?

D9 · Test Distribution9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

384 test methods: 381 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 3 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 14 `it`/`test` case(s) across 5 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only. The Go suite contributes 370 test case(s) across 95 `_test.go` file(s) declaring at least one — every `func Test…(t *testing.T)` that `go test` would collect, plus the suite methods a testify-style runner reaches; a table-driven case list counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is INFERRED from file names, paths and build constraints, not declared: 1 of those file(s) use Go's external test package (`package x_test`), which is a visibility boundary rather than a pyramid tier and was not read as one.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 14 tests. Measured on the JavaScript/TypeScript suite only — at least 165 test source file(s) (.go) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D11 · Test Reliability6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). JavaScript/TypeScript (vitest via `npm ci --ignore-scripts` in web/ (15 tests)): measured (0 flaky); Go (github.com/fatedier/frp): measured (2 flaky).

Flaky test: .::github.com/fatedier/frp/server.TestNewServiceReleasesListenersOnWebServerFailure · ×2

What to do

Resolve the 2 Flaky test finding(s) in Test Reliability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~7.9~~ 7.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 89% · ceiling Verified

27 outdated, 0 author-deprecated direct Go module(s), 3 pinning or checksum defect(s). 35 of 35 direct requirement(s) were graded against proxy.golang.org (0 not served there, 4 publishing no tagged release to be behind). Whether any of these modules is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — proxy.golang.org publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, not a registry one. Known CVEs in this module graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED and go.sum there.

Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/armon/go-socks5 · ×3

Outdated: github.com/coreos/go-oidc/v3 · ×27

What to do

Resolve the 3 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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 4 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 4 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 3 product REDACTED manifest(s). Its 42 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's npm package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.8 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: server/service.go (7×33=231); client/service.go (7×17=119); server/proxy/udp.go (2×27=54)

Hotspot: server/service.go · ×3server/service.go:148

What to do

Resolve the 3 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with service.go (2), udp.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

2 deducted task-comment markers across 30814 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×2server/service.go:765

What to do

Resolve the 2 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with service.go (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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?

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 Cohesion3.3 / 10Weak✓ 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 3.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 3 build units (Go, npm) 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?

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)1.3 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

34 finding(s): 0 critical, 18 high, 6 medium, 10 low. 9 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 4 file(s) — `server/group/http.go` (line 16), `server/group/https.go` (line 26), `server/group/tcp.go` (line 27), `server/group/tcpmux.go` (line 30) — 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.

REDACTED

+ 6 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 9 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities2.2 / 10Critical✓ 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 2.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

17 finding(s): 1 critical, 8 high, 8 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 7 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 High vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security8.1 / 10Adequategated by 4 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

10 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 6 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 4 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 128 of the 242 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: client.go↔REDACTED 71%

Change coupling: client.go ↔ REDACTEDpkg/config/legacy/client.go:1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with client.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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 & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

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

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC2 · Forms & labels10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC4 · Keyboard semantics3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".

A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler. — web/frps/src/components/ClientCard.vue:2
An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. (×2) — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:5, web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:5

What to do

Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety4.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

`.action-button .spinner` moves (`animation: spin 0.75s linear infinite`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — web/shared/components/ActionButton.vue:64
`.popover-trigger.filterable-trigger .arrow-icon` moves (`transition: transform 0.2s`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — web/shared/components/PopoverMenu.vue:275
`.sidebar` moves (`transition: transform 0.25s cubic-bezier(0.4, 0, 0.2, 1)`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. (×2) — web/frps/src/App.vue:506, web/frpc/src/App.vue:506
`.arrow-icon` moves (`transition: transform 0.2s ease`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — web/frps/src/components/StatCard.vue:104
`.bar` moves (`transition: height 0.3s ease`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — web/frps/src/components/Traffic.vue:203
`.collapse-arrow` moves (`transition: transform 0.3s`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce. — web/frpc/src/components/ConfigSection.vue:142

What to do

Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.

No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 49 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-vuejs-accessibility, then assert with vitest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition6.5 / 10Adequate✓ 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?

AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

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)9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a README to the 2 of 4 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy7.8 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

README claims a server dashboard but there is no server-dashboard package in the evidence — searched for: `server-dashboard`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (REDACTED and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:1
README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists — searched for: `kubernetes`, `k8s`, `helm`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (REDACTED and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:133
README.md documents the environment variable `FRP_SSH_REMOTE_PORT`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:527

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README claims a server dashboard but there is no server-dashboard package in the evidence; README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists; README.md documents the environment variable `FRP_SSH_REMOTE_PORT`, but no code, script or configuration file names it.

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 · Observability10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 tooling6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & 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?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

`http.Client{` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. (×3) — REDACTED:76, REDACTED:48, REDACTED:50

What to do

Give every `http.Client` an explicit `Timeout` (never call `http.Get`/`http.Post` or `http.DefaultClient`, which have none), or build each request with `http.NewRequestWithContext` under a `context.WithTimeout`; add retry with back-off (`hashicorp/go-retryablehttp`) and a breaker (`sony/gobreaker`) around dependencies that fail.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline8.5 / 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.

A Go testing.B suite exists but nothing turns on its allocation measurement — allocations (the main way hot code pressures a garbage collector or allocator) aren't being measured. — pkg/msg/udp_benchmark_test.go

What to do

Call b.ReportAllocs() in the benchmarks, or run them with `go test -bench . -benchmem`, so allocation regressions are visible, not just time.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 48 use(s) across 33,206 production line(s) (~1.4/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Go: on hot paths, reuse buffers and objects through sync.Pool, preallocate slices and maps with make([]T, 0, n) / make(map[K]V, n), size builders with Grow, append with strconv.Append*, and reslice with buf[:0] instead of allocating anew.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R1 · Type Safety10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R10 · Code Duplication8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

5 duplicated blocks under web/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories frpc, frps — 4 of them are reported below, and 1 is counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 5 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 5 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 5 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — web/frpc/vite.config.mts:12
web/frpc/src/views/ProxyEdit.vue:59 · web/frpc/src/views/VisitorEdit.vue:58 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 683 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — web/frpc/src/views/ProxyEdit.vue:59
web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:180 · web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:128 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 394 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:180
web/frpc/vite.config.mts:12 · web/frps/vite.config.mts:12 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — web/frpc/vite.config.mts:12
web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:110 · web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:221 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 190 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:110
web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:226 · web/frpc/src/views/VisitorList.vue:115 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 216 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:226
web/frpc/src/stores/proxy.ts:42 · web/frpc/src/stores/visitor.ts:18 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — web/frpc/src/stores/proxy.ts:42
web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:44 · web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:67 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:44
web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:255 · web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:300 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:255
web/frpc/src/utils/format.ts:1 · web/frps/src/utils/format.ts:1 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — web/frpc/src/utils/format.ts:1
web/frpc/src/App.vue:90 · web/frps/src/App.vue:102 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — web/frpc/src/App.vue:90
web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:14 · web/frps/src/api/http.ts:29 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:14
web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:87 · web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:113 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:87
web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:309 · web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:131 · web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:245 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:309
web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:327 · web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:144 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:327
web/frps/src/api/client.ts:5 · web/frps/src/api/proxy.ts:21 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 68 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — web/frps/src/api/client.ts:5
web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBackendSection.vue:84 · web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorPluginSection.vue:34 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBackendSection.vue:84
web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:64 · web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:78 — 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. — web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:64
web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBaseSection.vue:35 · web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorBaseSection.vue:24 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of MODULE-LEVEL DECLARATIONS — bindings the module declares and exports — rather than statements with a call site. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: a call expression cannot stand where a declaration was, and putting one there would delete the names themselves, which are what the rest of the codebase imports. What actually repeats here is the INITIALISER — the same expression shape written once per binding. So give that expression one name (a small helper the initialisers call, or a shared base value they are each derived from) and keep every binding under the name it already has. Where the run is an enumeration — one binding per distinct thing, differing precisely in the thing each one names — the repetition IS the enumeration and collapsing it would delete entries; consider instead whether the set belongs in one exported table the individual names are read out of. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBaseSection.vue:35
web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBaseSection.vue:35 · web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyFormLayout.vue:38 · web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorBaseSection.vue:24 · web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorFormLayout.vue:27 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of MODULE-LEVEL DECLARATIONS — bindings the module declares and exports — rather than statements with a call site. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: a call expression cannot stand where a declaration was, and putting one there would delete the names themselves, which are what the rest of the codebase imports. What actually repeats here is the INITIALISER — the same expression shape written once per binding. So give that expression one name (a small helper the initialisers call, or a shared base value they are each derived from) and keep every binding under the name it already has. Where the run is an enumeration — one binding per distinct thing, differing precisely in the thing each one names — the repetition IS the enumeration and collapsing it would delete entries; consider instead whether the set belongs in one exported table the individual names are read out of. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBaseSection.vue:35
web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:77 · web/frpc/src/views/VisitorDetail.vue:55 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 61 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:77
web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:167 · web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:267 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:167
web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyAuthSection.vue:25 · web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyHealthSection.vue:28 · web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyHttpSection.vue:17 · web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyLoadBalanceSection.vue:16 · +6 more site(s) not listed — the 10 copies are spread across 10 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of MODULE-LEVEL DECLARATIONS — bindings the module declares and exports — rather than statements with a call site. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: a call expression cannot stand where a declaration was, and putting one there would delete the names themselves, which are what the rest of the codebase imports. What actually repeats here is the INITIALISER — the same expression shape written once per binding. So give that expression one name (a small helper the initialisers call, or a shared base value they are each derived from) and keep every binding under the name it already has. Where the run is an enumeration — one binding per distinct thing, differing precisely in the thing each one names — the repetition IS the enumeration and collapsing it would delete entries; consider instead whether the set belongs in one exported table the individual names are read out of. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyAuthSection.vue:25
web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyFormLayout.vue:38 · web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyRemoteSection.vue:26 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 73 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyFormLayout.vue:38
web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:395 · web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:424 — 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. — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:395
web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:184 · web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:191 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:184
web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:289 · web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:110 · web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:221 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:289

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

formToStoreProxy has cyclomatic complexity 57 and cognitive complexity 81; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:10
storeProxyToForm has cyclomatic complexity 36 and cognitive complexity 25; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:328
formToStoreVisitor has cyclomatic complexity 24 and cognitive complexity 32; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:170
storeVisitorToForm has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:438
getStoreProxyBlock has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 9; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:243
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 17; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×2) — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:219, web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:152
fetchProxy has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:356
fetchData has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:211
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:90
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/frpc/src/stores/proxy.ts:91
fetchProxies has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:277

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R3 · Large Files6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue has 725 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:1
web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue has 563 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:1
web/frpc/src/App.vue has 450 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/frpc/src/App.vue:1
web/frps/src/App.vue has 449 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/frps/src/App.vue:1
web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts has 429 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:1
web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue has 414 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:1
web/frps/src/views/ServerOverview.vue has 404 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — web/frps/src/views/ServerOverview.vue:1

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R4 · Test Coverage1.3 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×40) — web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:1, web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:1, web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:1, …

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R5 · Dependency Freshness7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R7 · Dead Code9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

7 file(s) (~566 LoC) were excluded from dead-code analysis — declare main/module/exports or a conventional entry (src/index.*, an index.html script) so reachability can see this package. — web/shared
Unreachable from the 17 application, 13 tooling and 6 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run build` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
no import path from any entry point (17 application, 13 tooling, 6 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make — web/frpc/src/utils/format.ts
Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in web/frpc/src/types/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in web/frpc/src/types/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists. — web/frpc/src/types/constants.ts:32
Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×5) — web/frps/src/api/client.ts:5, web/frps/src/api/client.ts:24, web/frps/src/api/proxy.ts:21, …

What to do

Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R8 · Dependency Hygiene1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Imported but not declared in any reachable REDACTED — installs work only by hoisting accident. (×4) — web/frpc/src/App.vue:85, web/frps/src/App.vue:97, web/shared/components/FilterDropdown.vue:30, …
Declared in web/frpc/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
Declared in web/frps/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

What to do

Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether functions that make a cancellable request accept or pass on a context.Context or an AbortSignal (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Only 14/15 functions that make a cancellable request (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch; net/http, net.Dial) accept a context.Context or an AbortSignal or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a page navigated away from, a cancelled request, a shutdown, an expired deadline. Take a `signal` (Go: `ctx context.Context`) and hand it to the request; where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
`SetDefaultDNSAddress` calls `net.Dial(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`. — pkg/util/net/dns.go:22

What to do

Thread a context.Context or an AbortSignal through functions that make requests, so the work stops when its caller gives up.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. 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?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling6.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×26) — pkg/config/load.go:67, pkg/config/load.go:78, pkg/msg/handler.go:175, …
`if err := errors.PanicToError(func() { clientCfg.sidCh <- sid }); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — REDACTED:208
`if err = errors.PanicToError(func() { select { case sendCh <- udpMsg: default: } }); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×2) — pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:66, pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:101
`if err := ssh.Unmarshal(req.Payload, &payload); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — pkg/ssh/server.go:217
`if err := ssh.Unmarshal(payload, &msg); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — pkg/ssh/server.go:337
`if err := errors.PanicToError(func() { ch <- m }); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — pkg/transport/message.go:94
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×4) — pkg/util/net/udp.go:71, web/frpc/src/views/VisitorDetail.vue:75, web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:101, …
`if errRet != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — server/proxy/xtcp.go:74

What to do

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether strict null checking is enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` assertion — TypeScript's `strictNullChecks` (which `strict` turns on) is what makes `string` exclude `null` and `undefined`, and the postfix `!` is the operator that silences it.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

2/4 of this repository's type-checking configuration(s) turn on strict null checking (`"strict": true`, or `"strictNullChecks": true`). A configuration that states neither is counted as OFF, because off is tsc's own default; a solution-style one whose `"files"` is empty and whose `"references"` point at other projects is in neither number, because it checks no source itself. Where it is off, `string` admits `null` and `undefined`: passing a value that is null compiles silently and throws on the first property access.

What to do

The findings name the configuration each number was taken from and, for the assertions, the files that hold them. Turn null checking on where it is off — `"strict": true` in the base tsconfig that the others extend switches `strictNullChecks` on with the rest of the family — and then resolve the assertions rather than adding to them. A `!` on a value the checker could show to be null is a promise the author cannot check from where they are standing, and each one is a `TypeError: Cannot read properties of null` waiting for the path that makes it true; where the value genuinely cannot be null, say something the checker can see instead (narrow it with a test, make the property required, drop the `?`).

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 12 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (22%; ≈24% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 43 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
AC2 · Forms & labels	1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure	1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics	2.1.1, 2.4.3	Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness	4.1.2	Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety	1.4.3, 2.4.7	Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcement	enforcement — no page criterion	Enforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 43 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.1.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

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	73%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	84%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	76%	Strong	Solid.
Readiness	40%	Weak — gated by R4, R8, P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	60%	Adequate — gated by D29, D30, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility	57%	Adequate — gated by AC4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	81%	Strong	Strongest area.

Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 4 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

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

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

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

Not included — 45 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 image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Go imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's TypeScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
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 — no exported interface declares behaviour
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.go), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 4 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
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 MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — web/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (1 of 2 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer
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
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) 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
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — 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
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
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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 38 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×7

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unlisted import '@element-plus/icons-vue' · ×3

Unlisted import '@element-plus/icons-vue' web/frpc/src/App.vue:85 — Imported but not declared in any reachable REDACTED — installs work only by hoisting accident.
Unlisted import '@element-plus/icons-vue' web/frps/src/App.vue:97 — Imported but not declared in any reachable REDACTED — installs work only by hoisting accident.
Unlisted import '@element-plus/icons-vue' web/shared/components/FilterDropdown.vue:30 — Imported but not declared in any reachable REDACTED — installs work only by hoisting accident.

D11 · Test Reliability · Flaky test · ×2

Flaky test: .::github.com/fatedier/frp/server.TestNewServiceReleasesListenersOnWebServerFailure — Passed 1×, failed 2× across repeated runs.
Flaky test: .::github.com/fatedier/frp/server.TestNewServiceReleasesListenersOnWebServerFailure/port_conflict — Passed 1×, failed 2× across repeated runs.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

AC4 · Keyboard semantics · Click handler on a non-interactive <div> · ×1

Click handler on a non-interactive <div> web/frps/src/components/ClientCard.vue:2 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×1

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unlisted import 'element-plus' · ×1

Unlisted import 'element-plus' web/shared/components/PopoverMenu.vue:75 — Imported but not declared in any reachable REDACTED — installs work only by hoisting accident.

Serious — 281 finding(s)

R4 · Test Coverage · No test reaches this file · ×40

No test reaches this file web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/views/VisitorEdit.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frps/src/views/ServerOverview.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/views/ProxyEdit.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/views/VisitorList.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBackendSection.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/stores/proxy.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frps/src/App.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frps/src/api/http.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frps/src/api/proxy.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frps/src/components/Traffic.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/App.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/views/ClientConfigure.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/ProxyCard.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/views/VisitorDetail.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/api/frpc.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/router/index.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file web/frpc/src/components/ConfigSection.vue:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
+ 15 more in this group — see findings.md.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×33

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/config/load.go:67 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/config/load.go:78 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/msg/handler.go:175 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/nathole/utils.go:57 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:208 — `if err := errors.PanicToError(func() { clientCfg.sidCh <- sid }); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:390 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:394 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/plugin/client/http_proxy.go:149 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:48 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:60 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:66 — `if err = errors.PanicToError(func() { select { case sendCh <- udpMsg: default: } }); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:96 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:101 — `if err = errors.PanicToError(func() { select { case sendCh <- udpMsg: default: } }); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:116 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/ssh/server.go:152 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/ssh/server.go:217 — `if err := ssh.Unmarshal(req.Payload, &payload); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/ssh/server.go:307 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/ssh/server.go:337 — `if err := ssh.Unmarshal(payload, &msg); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/ssh/server.go:351 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/ssh/gateway.go:108 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/ssh/gateway.go:123 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/transport/message.go:94 — `if err := errors.PanicToError(func() { ch <- m }); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/util/log/log.go:63 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/util/system/system_android.go:33 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/util/system/system_android.go:37 — `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
+ 8 more in this group — see findings.md.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard · ×7

Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/shared/components/ActionButton.vue:64 — `.action-button .spinner` moves (`animation: spin 0.75s linear infinite`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/shared/components/PopoverMenu.vue:275 — `.popover-trigger.filterable-trigger .arrow-icon` moves (`transition: transform 0.2s`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/frps/src/App.vue:506 — `.sidebar` moves (`transition: transform 0.25s cubic-bezier(0.4, 0, 0.2, 1)`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/frps/src/components/StatCard.vue:104 — `.arrow-icon` moves (`transition: transform 0.2s ease`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/frps/src/components/Traffic.vue:203 — `.bar` moves (`transition: height 0.3s ease`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/frpc/src/App.vue:506 — `.sidebar` moves (`transition: transform 0.25s cubic-bezier(0.4, 0, 0.2, 1)`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.
Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard web/frpc/src/components/ConfigSection.vue:142 — `.collapse-arrow` moves (`transition: transform 0.3s`) and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it — no @media (prefers-reduced-motion) rule for this element, no reset this project loads — so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Declare it under @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference), or neutralise it under reduce.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×6

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) client/http/controller.go:243 — client/http/controller.go:243-249 | client/http/controller.go:278-284 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/http/controller.go:243` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) client/http/controller.go:359 — client/http/controller.go:359-365 | client/http/controller.go:394-400 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/http/controller.go:359` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) pkg/msg/udp_binary.go:304 — pkg/msg/udp_binary.go:304-310 | pkg/msg/wire_v2.go:143-150 — 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) server/proxy/http.go:137 — server/proxy/http.go:137-143 | server/proxy/udp.go:215-221 — 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) client/proxy/sudp.go:60 — client/proxy/sudp.go:60-66 | client/proxy/udp.go:62-68 — 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `error` to `pxy *SUDPProxy) Run() (err` in one and `pxy *UDPProxy) Run() (err` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) pkg/config/load.go:429 — pkg/config/load.go:429-435 | pkg/config/load.go:438-444 — 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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) client/http/controller.go:249 — client/http/controller.go:249-259 | client/http/controller.go:365-375 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) client/http/controller.go:284 — client/http/controller.go:284-294 | client/http/controller.go:400-410 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) pkg/auth/auth.go:43 — pkg/auth/auth.go:43-53 | pkg/auth/auth.go:101-111 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) pkg/config/types/types.go:140 — pkg/config/types/types.go:140-150 | REDACTED:71-81 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/config/types/types.go:140` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) server/proxy/tcp.go:37 — server/proxy/tcp.go:37-47 | server/proxy/udp.go:66-76 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) server/proxy/proxy.go:459 — server/proxy/proxy.go:459-471 | server/proxy/proxy.go:483-495 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `server/proxy/proxy.go:459` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) pkg/util/net/kcp.go:80 — pkg/util/net/kcp.go:80-92 | pkg/util/net/websocket.go:72-84 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) client/config_manager.go:205 — client/config_manager.go:205-217 | client/config_manager.go:305-318 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/config_manager.go:205` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) client/config_manager.go:258 — client/config_manager.go:258-270 | client/config_manager.go:359-371 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/config_manager.go:258` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) server/http/controller.go:118 — server/http/controller.go:118-126 | server/http/controller_v2.go:183-191 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) client/service.go:48 — client/service.go:48-56 | server/service.go:72-80 — 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 (9 lines × 2) pkg/config/v1/proxy.go:252 — pkg/config/v1/proxy.go:252-260 | pkg/config/v1/visitor.go:107-115 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) pkg/plugin/client/plugin.go:100 — pkg/plugin/client/plugin.go:100-108 | pkg/util/net/listener.go:61-69 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) pkg/config/legacy/parse.go:82 — pkg/config/legacy/parse.go:82-87 | pkg/config/load.go:517-522 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/config/legacy/parse.go:82` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) cmd/frpc/sub/root.go:108 — cmd/frpc/sub/root.go:108-113 | cmd/frps/root.go:104-109 — 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 (6 lines × 2) pkg/plugin/client/plugin.go:41 — pkg/plugin/client/plugin.go:41-46 | pkg/plugin/visitor/plugin.go:47-52 — 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 (6 lines × 2) client/visitor/stcp.go:35 — client/visitor/stcp.go:35-40 | client/visitor/xtcp.go:64-69 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/visitor/stcp.go:35` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) · ×4

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/App.vue:90 — web/frpc/src/App.vue:90 · web/frps/src/App.vue:102 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:14 — web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:14 · web/frps/src/api/http.ts:29 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:87 — web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:87 · web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:113 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:327 — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:327 · web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:144 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) · ×4

Swallowed exception (empty catch) pkg/util/net/udp.go:71 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/frpc/src/views/VisitorDetail.vue:75 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:101 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:109 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit · ×3

Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/armon/go-socks5 — Direct dependency `github.com/armon/go-socks5` is required at `v0.0.0-20160902184237-e75332964ef5` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2016-09-02, 10.1 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `github.com/armon/go-socks5` and has not moved this requirement in 10.1 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `github.com/armon/go-socks5` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/songgao/water — Direct dependency `github.com/songgao/water` is required at `v0.0.0-20200317203138-2b4b6d7c09d8` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2020-03-17, 6.6 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `github.com/songgao/water` and has not moved this requirement in 6.6 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `github.com/songgao/water` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: k8s.io/utils — Direct dependency `k8s.io/utils` is required at `v0.0.0-20230406110748-d93618cff8a2` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2023-04-06, 3.5 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `k8s.io/utils` and has not moved this requirement in 3.5 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `k8s.io/utils` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×3

Hotspot: server/service.go server/service.go:148 — server/service.go changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 33 in server.NewService at line 148. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 5 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 15:52:11 +08:00' --until='2026-10-23 15:52:11 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- server/service.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: client/service.go client/service.go:247 — client/service.go changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in Service.Run at line 247. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 15:52:11 +08:00' --until='2026-10-23 15:52:11 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- client/service.go`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: server/proxy/udp.go server/proxy/udp.go:78 — server/proxy/udp.go changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 27 in UDPProxy.Run at line 78. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 1 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-25..2026-10-23, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-25 15:52:11 +08:00' --until='2026-10-23 15:52:11 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- server/proxy/udp.go`: 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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) pkg/config/legacy/value.go:27 — pkg/config/legacy/value.go:27-36 | pkg/config/load.go:44-53 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) client/proxy/udp.go:51 — client/proxy/udp.go:51-60 | client/proxy/xtcp.go:46-55 — 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 (10 lines × 2) pkg/config/v1/proxy.go:201 — pkg/config/v1/proxy.go:201-210 | pkg/config/v1/visitor.go:92-101 — 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.

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience · ×3

Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED:76 — `http.Client{` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED:48 — `http.Client{` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED:50 — `http.Client{` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.

AC4 · Keyboard semantics · Anchor without href · ×2

Anchor without href web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:5 — An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action.
Anchor without href web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:5 — An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×2

TodoComment server/service.go:765 — // TODO(fatedier): Pass some parameters of listener/connection through context to avoid passing too many parameters. — 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 server/service.go:980 — // TODO(deprecation): Compatible with old versions, can be without runID, user is empty. In later versions, it will be mandatory to include runID. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFields · ×2

TooManyFields: ServerCommonConf pkg/config/legacy/server.go:36 — TooManyFields — 47 stored fields. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 17 over it, 1.57× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.
TooManyFields: ClientCommonConf pkg/config/legacy/client.go:34 — TooManyFields — 40 stored fields beside 1 method. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2

FileTooLong: server/service.go server/service.go — FileTooLong — 650 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 150 over it, 1.30× 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: server/control.go server/control.go — FileTooLong — 588 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 88 over it, 1.18× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) client/config_manager.go:413 — client/config_manager.go:413-426 | client/config_manager.go:439-452 — 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) client/config_manager.go:236 — client/config_manager.go:236-249 | client/config_manager.go:337-350 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/config_manager.go:236` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) pkg/sdk/client/client.go:36 — pkg/sdk/client/client.go:36-47 | pkg/sdk/client/client.go:59-70 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) pkg/util/http/handler.go:40 — pkg/util/http/handler.go:40-51 | pkg/util/http/handler.go:76-87 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/util/http/handler.go:40` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) pkg/config/legacy/conversion.go:27 — pkg/config/legacy/conversion.go:27-34 | pkg/config/legacy/conversion.go:88-95 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) pkg/plugin/client/plugin.go:48 — pkg/plugin/client/plugin.go:48-55 | pkg/plugin/visitor/plugin.go:54-61 — 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `Plugin` to `options v1.ClientPluginOptions) (p` in one and `options v1.VisitorPluginOptions) (p` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) client/api_router.go:60 — client/api_router.go:60-64 | server/api_router.go:66-71 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/api_router.go:60` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) pkg/plugin/client/https2http.go:42 — pkg/plugin/client/https2http.go:42-46 | REDACTED:48-52 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/plugin/client/https2http.go:42` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Low cohesion: StoreSource (LCOM4 9) pkg/config/source/store.go:36 — StoreSource's methods fall into 9 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 9 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: Controller (LCOM4 6) server/http/controller.go:36 — Controller's methods fall into 6 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 6 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.

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

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:44 — web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:44 · web/frpc/src/api/http.ts:67 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:255 — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:255 · web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:300 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBackendSection.vue:84 — web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBackendSection.vue:84 · web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorPluginSection.vue:34 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:64 — web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:64 · web/frps/src/utils/proxy.ts:78 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBaseSection.vue:35 — web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBaseSection.vue:35 · web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorBaseSection.vue:24 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of MODULE-LEVEL DECLARATIONS — bindings the module declares and exports — rather than statements with a call site. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: a call expression cannot stand where a declaration was, and putting one there would delete the names themselves, which are what the rest of the codebase imports. What actually repeats here is the INITIALISER — the same expression shape written once per binding. So give that expression one name (a small helper the initialisers call, or a shared base value they are each derived from) and keep every binding under the name it already has. Where the run is an enumeration — one binding per distinct thing, differing precisely in the thing each one names — the repetition IS the enumeration and collapsing it would delete entries; consider instead whether the set belongs in one exported table the individual names are read out of. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:167 — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:167 · web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:267 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 17) · ×2

Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 17) web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:219 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 17; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 17) web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:152 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 17; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@vue/tsconfig' · ×2

Unused dependency '@vue/tsconfig' — Declared in web/frpc/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
Unused dependency '@vue/tsconfig' — Declared in web/frps/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

AC7 · A11y enforcement · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1

Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 49 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy (cyclomatic 57) · ×1

proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy (cyclomatic 57) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:10 — proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy has cyclomatic complexity 57 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts holds 5 of the 19 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 77 of the 134 points over it (57%), 3.9× the next-largest file (server/service.go at 20). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · proxy-converters.storeProxyToForm (cyclomatic 36) · ×1

proxy-converters.storeProxyToForm (cyclomatic 36) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:328 — proxy-converters.storeProxyToForm has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts holds 5 of the 19 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 77 of the 134 points over it (57%), 3.9× the next-largest file (server/service.go at 20). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · server.NewService (cyclomatic 33) · ×1

server.NewService (cyclomatic 33) server/service.go:148 — server.NewService has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). Of this number, 32 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UDPProxy.Run (cyclomatic 27) · ×1

UDPProxy.Run (cyclomatic 27) server/proxy/udp.go:78 — UDPProxy.Run has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 27 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 184, 111, 156, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · proxy-converters.formToStoreVisitor (cyclomatic 24) · ×1

proxy-converters.formToStoreVisitor (cyclomatic 24) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:170 — proxy-converters.formToStoreVisitor has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts holds 5 of the 19 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 77 of the 134 points over it (57%), 3.9× the next-largest file (server/service.go at 20). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · nathole.MakeHole (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

nathole.MakeHole (cyclomatic 23) REDACTED:192 — nathole.MakeHole has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · legacy.LoadAllProxyConfsFromIni (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

legacy.LoadAllProxyConfsFromIni (cyclomatic 19) pkg/config/legacy/client.go:204 — legacy.LoadAllProxyConfsFromIni has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BaseProxy.HandleTCPWorkConnection (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

BaseProxy.HandleTCPWorkConnection (cyclomatic 18) client/proxy/proxy.go:173 — BaseProxy.HandleTCPWorkConnection has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · proxy-converters.storeVisitorToForm (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

proxy-converters.storeVisitorToForm (cyclomatic 18) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:438 — proxy-converters.storeVisitorToForm has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts holds 5 of the 19 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 77 of the 134 points over it (57%), 3.9× the next-largest file (server/service.go at 20). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SUDPProxy.InWorkConn (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

SUDPProxy.InWorkConn (cyclomatic 17) client/proxy/sudp.go:79 — SUDPProxy.InWorkConn has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 119, 147, 170, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Service.Run (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

Service.Run (cyclomatic 17) client/service.go:247 — Service.Run has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · http.buildV2ProxySpec (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

http.buildV2ProxySpec (cyclomatic 17) server/http/controller_v2.go:564 — http.buildV2ProxySpec has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · proxy-converters.getStoreProxyBlock (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

proxy-converters.getStoreProxyBlock (cyclomatic 17) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:243 — proxy-converters.getStoreProxyBlock has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts holds 5 of the 19 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 77 of the 134 points over it (57%), 3.9× the next-largest file (server/service.go at 20). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · controlSessionDialer.exchangeLogin (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

controlSessionDialer.exchangeLogin (cyclomatic 16) client/control_session.go:136 — controlSessionDialer.exchangeLogin has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · nathole.ClassifyNATFeature (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

nathole.ClassifyNATFeature (cyclomatic 16) pkg/nathole/classify.go:42 — nathole.ClassifyNATFeature has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Controller.APIV2ClientList (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

Controller.APIV2ClientList (cyclomatic 16) server/http/controller_v2.go:143 — Controller.APIV2ClientList has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ClientRegistry.RegisterWithControlID (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

ClientRegistry.RegisterWithControlID (cyclomatic 16) server/registry/registry.go:74 — ClientRegistry.RegisterWithControlID has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Service.handleConnection (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

Service.handleConnection (cyclomatic 16) server/service.go:524 — Service.handleConnection has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Service.RegisterControl (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

Service.RegisterControl (cyclomatic 16) server/service.go:848 — Service.RegisterControl has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy (cognitive 80) · ×1

proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy (cognitive 80) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:10 — proxy-converters.formToStoreProxy has cognitive complexity 80 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 42 (70 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 28). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · server.NewService (cognitive 50) · ×1

server.NewService (cognitive 50) server/service.go:148 — server.NewService has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 32 (48 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 49 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UDPProxy.Run (cognitive 48) · ×1

UDPProxy.Run (cognitive 48) server/proxy/udp.go:78 — UDPProxy.Run has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (38 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 3 (nesting depth added 24). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 48 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 184, 111, 156, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · nathole.MakeHole (cognitive 37) · ×1

nathole.MakeHole (cognitive 37) REDACTED:192 — nathole.MakeHole has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (23 pts), loops 6 (11 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 33 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · proxy-converters.storeProxyToForm (cognitive 35) · ×1

proxy-converters.storeProxyToForm (cognitive 35) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:328 — proxy-converters.storeProxyToForm has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 21, if/else 14. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Service.handleConnection (cognitive 33) · ×1

Service.handleConnection (cognitive 33) server/service.go:524 — Service.handleConnection has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (32 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · proxy-converters.formToStoreVisitor (cognitive 32) · ×1

proxy-converters.formToStoreVisitor (cognitive 32) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:170 — proxy-converters.formToStoreVisitor has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (27 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Manager.Acquire (cognitive 30) · ×1

Manager.Acquire (cognitive 30) server/ports/ports.go:82 — Manager.Acquire has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (28 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 14). Of this number, 29 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · config.LoadAdditionalClientConfigs (cognitive 27) · ×1

config.LoadAdditionalClientConfigs (cognitive 27) pkg/config/load.go:502 — config.LoadAdditionalClientConfigs has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (16 pts), loops 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · legacy.LoadAllProxyConfsFromIni (cognitive 26) · ×1

legacy.LoadAllProxyConfsFromIni (cognitive 26) pkg/config/legacy/client.go:204 — legacy.LoadAllProxyConfsFromIni has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (18 pts), loops 4, boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · udp.Forwarder (cognitive 26) · ×1

udp.Forwarder (cognitive 26) pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:77 — udp.Forwarder has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (21 pts), loops 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). None of this is in the body itself: all 26 points belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 113, 82). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ControlManager.Add (cognitive 26) · ×1

ControlManager.Add (cognitive 26) server/control.go:109 — ControlManager.Add has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (25 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · controlSessionDialer.exchangeLogin (cognitive 23) · ×1

controlSessionDialer.exchangeLogin (cognitive 23) client/control_session.go:136 — controlSessionDialer.exchangeLogin has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (22 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Controller.readLoopServer (cognitive 23) · ×1

Controller.readLoopServer (cognitive 23) pkg/vnet/controller.go:193 — Controller.readLoopServer has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (21 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SUDPProxy.InWorkConn (cognitive 22) · ×1

SUDPProxy.InWorkConn (cognitive 22) client/proxy/sudp.go:79 — SUDPProxy.InWorkConn has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), loops 3 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 22 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 119, 170, 147, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Service.Run (cognitive 22) · ×1

Service.Run (cognitive 22) client/service.go:247 — Service.Run has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · config.LoadClientConfigResult (cognitive 22) · ×1

config.LoadClientConfigResult (cognitive 22) pkg/config/load.go:346 — config.LoadClientConfigResult has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BaseProxy.startCommonTCPListenersHandler (cognitive 22) · ×1

BaseProxy.startCommonTCPListenersHandler (cognitive 22) server/proxy/proxy.go:232 — BaseProxy.startCommonTCPListenersHandler has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (18 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 22 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 235). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Service.HandleListener (cognitive 22) · ×1

Service.HandleListener (cognitive 22) server/service.go:766 — Service.HandleListener has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (17 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 22 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 795). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SUDPVisitor.worker (cognitive 21) · ×1

SUDPVisitor.worker (cognitive 21) client/visitor/sudp.go:113 — SUDPVisitor.worker has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 10). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 21 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 167, 129). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BaseProxy.HandleTCPWorkConnection (cognitive 20) · ×1

BaseProxy.HandleTCPWorkConnection (cognitive 20) client/proxy/proxy.go:173 — BaseProxy.HandleTCPWorkConnection has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (17 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · nathole.ClassifyNATFeature (cognitive 20) · ×1

nathole.ClassifyNATFeature (cognitive 20) pkg/nathole/classify.go:42 — nathole.ClassifyNATFeature has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · fastBackoffImpl.Backoff (cognitive 20) · ×1

fastBackoffImpl.Backoff (cognitive 20) REDACTED:77 — fastBackoffImpl.Backoff has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Controller.APIV2ClientList (cognitive 20) · ×1

Controller.APIV2ClientList (cognitive 20) server/http/controller_v2.go:143 — Controller.APIV2ClientList has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · legacy.getIncludeContents (cognitive 19) · ×1

legacy.getIncludeContents (cognitive 19) pkg/config/legacy/parse.go:68 — legacy.getIncludeContents has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (16 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VirtualNetPlugin.run (cognitive 19) · ×1

VirtualNetPlugin.run (cognitive 19) pkg/plugin/visitor/virtual_net.go:116 — VirtualNetPlugin.run has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Service.Run (cognitive 19) · ×1

Service.Run (cognitive 19) server/service.go:403 — Service.Run has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (18 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · util.ParseRangeNumbers (cognitive 18) · ×1

util.ParseRangeNumbers (cognitive 18) REDACTED:67 — util.ParseRangeNumbers has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (12 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Wrapper.checkWorker (cognitive 17) · ×1

Wrapper.checkWorker (cognitive 17) client/proxy/proxy_wrapper.go:196 — Wrapper.checkWorker has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ClientCommonConf.Validate (cognitive 17) · ×1

ClientCommonConf.Validate (cognitive 17) pkg/config/legacy/client.go:362 — ClientCommonConf.Validate has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · vhost.NewHTTPReverseProxy (cognitive 17) · ×1

vhost.NewHTTPReverseProxy (cognitive 17) pkg/util/vhost/http.go:49 — vhost.NewHTTPReverseProxy has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 17 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 59, 128, 94, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · http.buildV2ProxySpec (cognitive 17) · ×1

http.buildV2ProxySpec (cognitive 17) server/http/controller_v2.go:564 — http.buildV2ProxySpec has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 8). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HTTPProxy.Run (cognitive 17) · ×1

HTTPProxy.Run (cognitive 17) server/proxy/http.go:55 — HTTPProxy.Run has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Service.RegisterControl (cognitive 17) · ×1

Service.RegisterControl (cognitive 17) server/service.go:848 — Service.RegisterControl has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · proxy-converters.storeVisitorToForm (cognitive 17) · ×1

proxy-converters.storeVisitorToForm (cognitive 17) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:438 — proxy-converters.storeVisitorToForm has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 15, if/else 2. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TunnelServer.waitForwardAddrAndExtraPayload (cognitive 16) · ×1

TunnelServer.waitForwardAddrAndExtraPayload (cognitive 16) pkg/ssh/server.go:203 — TunnelServer.waitForwardAddrAndExtraPayload has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), loops 3, boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 212, 230). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Controller.APIV2ProxyList (cognitive 16) · ×1

Controller.APIV2ProxyList (cognitive 16) server/http/controller_v2.go:221 — Controller.APIV2ProxyList has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ClientRegistry.RegisterWithControlID (cognitive 16) · ×1

ClientRegistry.RegisterWithControlID (cognitive 16) server/registry/registry.go:74 — ClientRegistry.RegisterWithControlID has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×1

FunctionTooLong: server.NewService server/service.go:148 — FunctionTooLong — NewService runs 156 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 56 over it, 1.56× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1

MethodTooLong: UDPProxy.Run server/proxy/udp.go:78 — MethodTooLong — Run runs 119 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 19 over it, 1.19× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1

Change coupling: client.go ↔ REDACTED pkg/config/legacy/client.go:1 — `pkg/config/legacy/client.go` and `pkg/config/legacy/server.go` change together 71% of the time (12 of the 17 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). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 12 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `092e5d3f` client, pkg, server, test: replaced 'interface{}' with 'any' (#4611); `77990c31` fix ini configuration default values (#4250); `3ae1a4f4` update confugration examples and README (#3650) — run `git show` on any of them.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (20 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (20 corresponding lines) pkg/config/legacy/parse.go:68 — pkg/config/legacy/parse.go:68-98 | pkg/config/load.go:502-538 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 20 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

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

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) client/http/controller.go:242 — client/http/controller.go:242-270 | client/http/controller.go:272-305 | client/http/controller.go:358-386 | client/http/controller.go:388-421 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

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

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) client/proxy/xtcp.go:63 — client/proxy/xtcp.go:63-81 | client/visitor/xtcp.go:258-276 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/proxy/xtcp.go:63` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) client/http/model/proxy_definition.go:122 — client/http/model/proxy_definition.go:122-139 | client/http/model/visitor_definition.go:82-98 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/http/model/proxy_definition.go:122` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) cmd/frpc/sub/proxy.go:77 — cmd/frpc/sub/proxy.go:77-92 | cmd/frpc/sub/proxy.go:110-124 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `cmd/frpc/sub/proxy.go:77` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:60 — pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:60-75 | pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:96-110 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:60` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:94` calls `SetReadDeadline`, `Now`, `Add` and `pkg/proto/udp/udp.go:58` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) client/proxy/sudp.go:83 — client/proxy/sudp.go:83-91 | client/proxy/udp.go:94-103 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/proxy/sudp.go:83` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `client/proxy/udp.go:92` calls `Close` and `client/proxy/sudp.go:81` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) client/http/controller.go:254 — client/http/controller.go:254-259 | client/http/controller.go:289-294 | client/http/controller.go:370-375 | client/http/controller.go:405-410 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `client/http/controller.go:254` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) server/proxy/http.go:44 — server/proxy/http.go:44-53 | server/proxy/https.go:36-45 | server/proxy/stcp.go:32-41 | server/proxy/sudp.go:32-41 | server/proxy/tcpmux.go:37-46 — 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 5 call sites, so a change lands once.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — JavaScript/TypeScript suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — web/ runs vitest but declares no coverage provider, so the suite can run and still produce no lcov — add `@vitest/coverage-v8` (or `@vitest/coverage-istanbul`) as a devDependency. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.

P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Coverage collected but not gated · ×1

Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplication concentrated across 2 sibling directories (5 clone groups) · ×1

Duplication concentrated across 2 sibling directories (5 clone groups) web/frpc/vite.config.mts:12 — 5 duplicated blocks under web/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories frpc, frps — 4 of them are reported below, and 1 is counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 5 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 5 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 5 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (126 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (126 matched lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/views/ProxyEdit.vue:59 — web/frpc/src/views/ProxyEdit.vue:59 · web/frpc/src/views/VisitorEdit.vue:58 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 683 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (74 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (74 matched lines × 2 locations) web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:180 — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:180 · web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:128 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 394 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (45 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (45 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/vite.config.mts:12 — web/frpc/vite.config.mts:12 · web/frps/vite.config.mts:12 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (37 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (37 matched lines × 2 locations) web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:110 — web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:110 · web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:221 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 190 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (36 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (36 matched lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:226 — web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:226 · web/frpc/src/views/VisitorList.vue:115 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 216 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (33 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (33 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/stores/proxy.ts:42 — web/frpc/src/stores/proxy.ts:42 · web/frpc/src/stores/visitor.ts:18 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/utils/format.ts:1 — web/frpc/src/utils/format.ts:1 · web/frps/src/utils/format.ts:1 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 3 locations) web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:309 — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:309 · web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:131 · web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:245 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (13 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (13 matched lines × 2 locations) web/frps/src/api/client.ts:5 — web/frps/src/api/client.ts:5 · web/frps/src/api/proxy.ts:21 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 68 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 4 locations) web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBaseSection.vue:35 — web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyBaseSection.vue:35 · web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyFormLayout.vue:38 · web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorBaseSection.vue:24 · web/frpc/src/components/visitor-form/VisitorFormLayout.vue:27 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of MODULE-LEVEL DECLARATIONS — bindings the module declares and exports — rather than statements with a call site. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: a call expression cannot stand where a declaration was, and putting one there would delete the names themselves, which are what the rest of the codebase imports. What actually repeats here is the INITIALISER — the same expression shape written once per binding. So give that expression one name (a small helper the initialisers call, or a shared base value they are each derived from) and keep every binding under the name it already has. Where the run is an enumeration — one binding per distinct thing, differing precisely in the thing each one names — the repetition IS the enumeration and collapsing it would delete entries; consider instead whether the set belongs in one exported table the individual names are read out of. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (10 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (10 matched lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:77 — web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:77 · web/frpc/src/views/VisitorDetail.vue:55 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 61 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 10 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 10 locations) web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyAuthSection.vue:25 — web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyAuthSection.vue:25 · web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyHealthSection.vue:28 · web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyHttpSection.vue:17 · web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyLoadBalanceSection.vue:16 · +6 more site(s) not listed — the 10 copies are spread across 10 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of MODULE-LEVEL DECLARATIONS — bindings the module declares and exports — rather than statements with a call site. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: a call expression cannot stand where a declaration was, and putting one there would delete the names themselves, which are what the rest of the codebase imports. What actually repeats here is the INITIALISER — the same expression shape written once per binding. So give that expression one name (a small helper the initialisers call, or a shared base value they are each derived from) and keep every binding under the name it already has. Where the run is an enumeration — one binding per distinct thing, differing precisely in the thing each one names — the repetition IS the enumeration and collapsing it would delete entries; consider instead whether the set belongs in one exported table the individual names are read out of. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (9 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (9 matched lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyFormLayout.vue:38 — web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyFormLayout.vue:38 · web/frpc/src/components/proxy-form/ProxyRemoteSection.vue:26 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 73 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:395 — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:395 · web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:424 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:184 — web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:184 · web/frpc/src/views/ProxyList.vue:191 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3 locations) web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:289 — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:289 · web/frps/src/views/Clients.vue:110 · web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:221 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function formToStoreProxy (cyclomatic 57, cognitive 81) · ×1

Complex function formToStoreProxy (cyclomatic 57, cognitive 81) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:10 — formToStoreProxy has cyclomatic complexity 57 and cognitive complexity 81; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function storeProxyToForm (cyclomatic 36, cognitive 25) · ×1

Complex function storeProxyToForm (cyclomatic 36, cognitive 25) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:328 — storeProxyToForm has cyclomatic complexity 36 and cognitive complexity 25; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function formToStoreVisitor (cyclomatic 24, cognitive 32) · ×1

Complex function formToStoreVisitor (cyclomatic 24, cognitive 32) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:170 — formToStoreVisitor has cyclomatic complexity 24 and cognitive complexity 32; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function storeVisitorToForm (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 11) · ×1

Complex function storeVisitorToForm (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 11) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:438 — storeVisitorToForm has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function getStoreProxyBlock (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 9) · ×1

Complex function getStoreProxyBlock (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 9) web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:243 — getStoreProxyBlock has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 9; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function fetchProxy (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) · ×1

Complex function fetchProxy (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:356 — fetchProxy has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

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

Complex function fetchData (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:211 — fetchData has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 14) · ×1

Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 14) web/frpc/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:90 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) · ×1

Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) web/frpc/src/stores/proxy.ts:91 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function fetchProxies (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) · ×1

Complex function fetchProxies (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:277 — fetchProxies has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R3 · Large Files · web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue · ×1

web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue: 725 lines of code web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue:1 — web/frps/src/views/ProxyDetail.vue has 725 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.

R3 · Large Files · web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue · ×1

web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue: 563 lines of code web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue:1 — web/frps/src/views/ClientDetail.vue has 563 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.

R3 · Large Files · web/frpc/src/App.vue · ×1

web/frpc/src/App.vue: 450 lines of code web/frpc/src/App.vue:1 — web/frpc/src/App.vue has 450 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.

R3 · Large Files · web/frps/src/App.vue · ×1

web/frps/src/App.vue: 449 lines of code web/frps/src/App.vue:1 — web/frps/src/App.vue has 449 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.

R3 · Large Files · web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts · ×1

web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts: 429 lines of code web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts:1 — web/frpc/src/types/proxy-converters.ts has 429 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.

R3 · Large Files · web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue · ×1

web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue: 414 lines of code web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue:1 — web/frps/src/views/Proxies.vue has 414 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.

R3 · Large Files · web/frps/src/views/ServerOverview.vue · ×1

web/frps/src/views/ServerOverview.vue: 404 lines of code web/frps/src/views/ServerOverview.vue:1 — web/frps/src/views/ServerOverview.vue has 404 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.

R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~33 LoC) · ×1

Dead file (~33 LoC) web/frpc/src/utils/format.ts — no import path from any entry point (17 application, 13 tooling, 6 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Function without context.Context · ×1

Function without context.Context: SetDefaultDNSAddress pkg/util/net/dns.go:22 — `SetDefaultDNSAddress` calls `net.Dial(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`.

Minor — 33 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×10

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×4

Duplicated predicate server/http/controller.go:106 — `clientIDFilter != "" && info.ClientID() != clientIDFilter` appears character-identically in 2 files — server/http/controller.go, server/http/controller_v2.go. 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 client/http/model/proxy_definition.go:31 — `isUpdate && pathName != "" && pathName != p.Name` appears character-identically in 2 files — client/http/model/proxy_definition.go, client/http/model/visitor_definition.go. 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 server/http/controller.go:109 — `runIDFilter != "" && info.RunID != runIDFilter` appears character-identically in 2 files — server/http/controller.go, server/http/controller_v2.go. 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 web/frps/src/api/client.ts:15 — `params.status && params.status !== 'all'` appears character-identically in 2 files — web/frps/src/api/client.ts, web/frps/src/api/proxy.ts. 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.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×3

README/code drift README.md:1 — README claims a server dashboard but there is no server-dashboard package in the evidence — searched for: `server-dashboard`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (REDACTED and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift README.md:133 — README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists — searched for: `kubernetes`, `k8s`, `helm`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (REDACTED and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift README.md:527 — README.md documents the environment variable `FRP_SSH_REMOTE_PORT`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

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 — 1 of 3 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 3.3/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (28966 LoC, 463 module-visible types across 65 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.

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

REDACTED

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.

PF1 · Benchmark discipline · Benchmarks don't track allocations · ×1

Benchmarks don't track allocations pkg/msg/udp_benchmark_test.go — A Go testing.B suite exists but nothing turns on its allocation measurement — allocations (the main way hot code pressures a garbage collector or allocator) aren't being measured.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'PluginType' · ×1

Unused export 'PluginType' web/frpc/src/types/constants.ts:32 — Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in web/frpc/src/types/index.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in web/frpc/src/types/index.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'getClients' · ×1

Unused export 'getClients' web/frps/src/api/client.ts:5 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'getClient' · ×1

Unused export 'getClient' web/frps/src/api/client.ts:24 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'getProxiesByType' · ×1

Unused export 'getProxiesByType' web/frps/src/api/proxy.ts:21 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'getProxy' · ×1

Unused export 'getProxy' web/frps/src/api/proxy.ts:93 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'getProxyByName' · ×1

Unused export 'getProxyByName' web/frps/src/api/proxy.ts:104 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all functions that make a request accept a context.Context or an AbortSignal · ×1

Not all functions that make a request accept a context.Context or an AbortSignal — Only 14/15 functions that make a cancellable request (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch; net/http, net.Dial) accept a context.Context or an AbortSignal or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a page navigated away from, a cancelled request, a shutdown, an expired deadline. Take a `signal` (Go: `ctx context.Context`) and hand it to the request; where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Strict null checking is not enabled everywhere the repository type-checks · ×1

Strict null checking is not enabled everywhere the repository type-checks — 2/4 of this repository's type-checking configuration(s) turn on strict null checking (`"strict": true`, or `"strictNullChecks": true`). A configuration that states neither is counted as OFF, because off is tsc's own default; a solution-style one whose `"files"` is empty and whose `"references"` point at other projects is in neither number, because it checks no source itself. Where it is off, `string` admits `null` and `undefined`: passing a value that is null compiles silently and throws on the first property access.

Minor — 27 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×27

Outdated: github.com/coreos/go-oidc/v3 — `github.com/coreos/go-oidc/v3` is required at v3.18.0 in REDACTED, but v3.21.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/coreos/go-oidc/v3@v3.21.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gorilla/websocket — `github.com/gorilla/websocket` is required at v1.5.0 in REDACTED, but v1.5.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gorilla/websocket@v1.5.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/onsi/ginkgo/v2 — `github.com/onsi/ginkgo/v2` is required at v2.23.4 in REDACTED, but v2.33.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/onsi/ginkgo/v2@v2.33.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/onsi/gomega — `github.com/onsi/gomega` is required at v1.36.3 in REDACTED, but v1.44.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/onsi/gomega@v1.44.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2 — `github.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2` is required at v2.2.0 in REDACTED, but v2.4.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2@v2.4.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/pires/go-proxyproto — `github.com/pires/go-proxyproto` is required at v0.15.0 in REDACTED, but v0.16.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/pires/go-proxyproto@v0.16.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/prometheus/client_golang — `github.com/prometheus/client_golang` is required at v1.19.1 in REDACTED, but v1.25.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/prometheus/client_golang@v1.25.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/prometheus/client_model — `github.com/prometheus/client_model` is required at v0.5.0 in REDACTED, but v0.6.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/prometheus/client_model@v0.6.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/prometheus/common — `github.com/prometheus/common` is required at v0.48.0 in REDACTED, but v0.72.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/prometheus/common@v0.72.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/quic-go/quic-go — `github.com/quic-go/quic-go` is required at v0.60.0 in REDACTED, but v0.64.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/quic-go/quic-go@v0.64.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/rodaine/table — `github.com/rodaine/table` is required at v1.2.0 in REDACTED, but v1.4.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/rodaine/table@v1.4.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/samber/lo — `github.com/samber/lo` is required at v1.47.0 in REDACTED, but v1.53.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/samber/lo@v1.53.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/spf13/cobra — `github.com/spf13/cobra` is required at v1.8.0 in REDACTED, but v1.10.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/spf13/cobra@v1.10.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/spf13/pflag — `github.com/spf13/pflag` is required at v1.0.5 in REDACTED, but v1.0.10 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/spf13/pflag@v1.0.10 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/stretchr/testify — `github.com/stretchr/testify` is required at v1.11.1 in REDACTED, but v1.12.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/stretchr/testify@v1.12.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/tidwall/gjson — `github.com/tidwall/gjson` is required at v1.17.1 in REDACTED, but v1.20.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/tidwall/gjson@v1.20.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/vishvananda/netlink — `github.com/vishvananda/netlink` is required at v1.3.0 in REDACTED, but v1.3.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/vishvananda/netlink@v1.3.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/xtaci/kcp-go/v5 — `github.com/xtaci/kcp-go/v5` is required at v5.6.13 in REDACTED, but v5.6.73 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/xtaci/kcp-go/v5@v5.6.73 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/crypto — `golang.org/x/crypto` is required at v0.56.0 in REDACTED, but v0.58.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/crypto@v0.58.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/net — `golang.org/x/net` is required at v0.57.0 in REDACTED, but v0.61.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/net@v0.61.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/oauth2 — `golang.org/x/oauth2` is required at v0.36.0 in REDACTED, but v0.37.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/oauth2@v0.37.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/sync — `golang.org/x/sync` is required at v0.22.0 in REDACTED, but v0.24.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/sync@v0.24.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/sys — `golang.org/x/sys` is required at v0.47.0 in REDACTED, but v0.49.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/sys@v0.49.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/time — `golang.org/x/time` is required at v0.10.0 in REDACTED, but v0.16.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/time@v0.16.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: gopkg.in/ini.v1 — `gopkg.in/ini.v1` is required at v1.67.0 in REDACTED, but v1.67.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get gopkg.in/ini.v1@v1.67.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
+ 2 more in this group — see findings.md.

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-3a0ae60eed18457fa06274e9ab6d2e5b/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-3a0ae60eed18457fa06274e9ab6d2e5b/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 .	34	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	17	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	10	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 4 file(s) — `server/group/http.go`, `server/group/https.go`, `server/group/tcp.go`, `server/group/tcpmux.go` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a16adb-2e27-7f56-b1f4-582caa8cfb6f · 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: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 73% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 84% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 76% · Strong ·

At a glance — Readiness · 40% · Weak · gated by R4, R8, P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 60% · Adequate · gated by D29, D30, D36 ·

At a glance — Accessibility · 57% · Adequate · gated by AC4 ·

At a glance — Performance · 81% · Strong ·

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

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts