firebase/FirebaseUI-Android

Executive summary

firebase/FirebaseUI-Android scores 73 out of 100 and is rated Strong, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Performance at 100 and Architecture at 91, both rated Exemplary, and Code Health at 85 and Security and Compliance at 82, both rated Strong.

The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Maturity, which scores 67 and is rated Adequate. Its Architecture documentation dimension scores 3 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Maturity can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor, and if Maturity rose to 70, the score would rise from 73 to about 74.

Four findings are critical: two in Secrets (history), one in Change Coupling and one in Static Analysis (SAST).

Watchdog couldn't measure 14 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and Dependency Hygiene, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 26,283 lines, which would take an estimated 0.6 person-years, around €89,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 85 Strong Architecture 91 ★ Exemplary Maturity 67 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 70 Adequate, capped by Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 82 Strong Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

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

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

Maturity 67 · counts for 46%Production Readiness 70 · counts for 25%Security and Compliance 82 · counts for 14%Code Health 85 · counts for 8%Architecture 91 · counts for 4%Performance 100 · counts for 2%

If Maturity rose from 67 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 73 to about 74.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 42%Tests 58%

New since the last survey: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding wasn't in the previous survey, on 10 October 2026.

Secrets (history) · REDACTED

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

Fixed since the last survey: 7 findings

These 7 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 10 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/ErrorRecoveryDialog.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/ErrorRecoveryDialog.kt
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/AuthException.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/AuthException.kt
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/GoogleAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/GoogleAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/string_provider/AuthUIStringProvider.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/string_provider/AuthUIStringProvider.kt
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/string_provider/DefaultAuthUIStringProvider.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/string_provider/DefaultAuthUIStringProvider.kt
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/FirebaseAuthActivity.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/FirebaseAuthActivity.kt

Rebuild cost: about €89,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€29,000 to €150,000, for 492 to 1,559 hours of work, about 0.6 person-years for 1 to 2 engineers
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×1.1 at a score of 73. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 26,283 lines of product code

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

Top priorities

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

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

Raises the score by about 6 points · Low effort · ADR Quality

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

Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · Bus Factor

Record your significant design decisions.

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

Raises the score by about 5 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 6 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

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

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

92 modules, with 137 dependencies between them. 5 loops run through 22 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 52 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 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.auth_provider.AuthProvider.Facebook	2 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.auth_provider.AuthProvider.Google	3 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.auth_provider.AuthProvider.Phone	4 com.firebase.ui.auth.data	5 com.firebase.ui.auth.util.SignInPreferenceManager	6 com.firebase.ui.common	8 com.firebase.ui.auth.AuthState	9 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.string_provider	10 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.theme.AuthUITheme	11 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.AuthRoute.Email	12 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.AuthRoute.MfaEnrollment	13 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.AuthRoute.Phone	14 com.firebase.ui.auth.util.EmailLinkPersistenceManager	15 com.firebase.ui.database	16 com.firebase.ui.firestore	17 com.firebase.ui.auth.AuthException	18 com.firebase.ui.auth.AuthState.Reauthentication	19 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.theme	20 com.firebase.ui.auth.util	23 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.auth_provider.AuthProvider	24 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.auth_provider	25 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration	26 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.method_picker	27 com.firebase.ui.auth	29 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.validators	30 com.firebase.ui.auth.mfa	34 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.email	35 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.phone	36 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.AuthRoute	37 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.reauth	38 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens
1 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.auth_provider.AuthProvider.Facebook
2 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.auth_provider.AuthProvider.Google
3 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.auth_provider.AuthProvider.Phone
4 com.firebase.ui.auth.data
5 com.firebase.ui.auth.util.SignInPreferenceManager
6 com.firebase.ui.common
7 scripts.translations.base_string_script
8 com.firebase.ui.auth.AuthState																	1							14
9 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.string_provider																						1
10 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.theme.AuthUITheme																		2
11 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.AuthRoute.Email																													1
12 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.AuthRoute.MfaEnrollment																													1
13 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.AuthRoute.Phone																													1
14 com.firebase.ui.auth.util.EmailLinkPersistenceManager																			1
15 com.firebase.ui.database						8
16 com.firebase.ui.firestore						6
17 com.firebase.ui.auth.AuthException								1																20
18 com.firebase.ui.auth.AuthState.Reauthentication							10
19 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.theme									2
20 com.firebase.ui.auth.util				1	1								1
21 com.firebase.ui.database.paging														4
22 com.firebase.ui.firestore.paging															4
23 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.auth_provider.AuthProvider	1		2															1	1		4	2
24 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.auth_provider	1	2	2													1			1	5		1		4
25 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration								3										4			3
26 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.method_picker					1													1			1
27 com.firebase.ui.auth	2	2															1					5
28 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.PasswordRule								6														6
29 com.firebase.ui.auth.configuration.validators				1				6														1
30 com.firebase.ui.auth.mfa				1				2												1		3
31 com.firebase.ui.auth.FirebaseAuthActivity																						1		1
32 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.components				1			1	5	1												1			4	2
33 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.components.TopLevelDialogController.DialogState																								1
34 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.email										1												6		4
35 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.phone				3								1										4		4
36 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.AuthRoute										1	1	1														1	1	1			2
37 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.reauth							2	1									3				2	2		3		1	1	2	2
38 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens								2													1	3	1	4		3	2	2	1	1
39 com.firebase.ui.auth.ui.screens.mfa				2				1			1											7		1		10					1
40 com.firebaseui.android.demo.auth								2	1												1	3		7			3	3		1	2

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 85% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · Kotlin Cyclomatic Complexity 7.1 D3 · Kotlin God Classes 7.5 D4 · Kotlin Code Duplication 9.5 D17 · Kotlin Explicit Debt 10.0 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 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 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 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 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 7.7 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.9

The Ugly

D2 · Kotlin Cognitive Complexity 4.3

At a glance — Architecture · 91% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Kotlin Coupling 8.8 D6 · Kotlin Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D22 · Kotlin Internal API Consistency 9.0 D26 · Kotlin Project Cohesion 8.2 D35 · Kotlin Change Coupling 9.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.1 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 67% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Kotlin Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.5 D19 · Kotlin Documentation Quality 9.1 D21 · Kotlin Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Kotlin Knowledge Freshness 8.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 9.9

The Bad

D16 · Kotlin Bus Factor 6.5

The Ugly

D20 · Kotlin ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 3.0

At a glance — Readiness · 70% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

The Good

D9 · Kotlin Test Distribution 10.0 D13 · Kotlin REDACTED Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 3.0

At a glance — Security · 82% · Strong ·

The Good

D28 · Kotlin Secrets (history) 8.0 D29 · Kotlin Static Analysis (SAST) 7.6 D44 · Kotlin Platform End-of-Life 10.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 8.0 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

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	3	High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection	3	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, address the single gap in Architecture Decision Records by documenting significant design choices in a dedicated folder to ensure knowledge retention and reduce bus factor risks. Second, integrate a static application security testing step into the continuous integration pipeline to automatically block security regressions before they are merged. Finally, restrict public API exposure by hiding implementation types to protect consumers from internal changes and maintain stable library contracts.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+5.8 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.	+3.6 pts	Low	Bus Factor
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.	+5.0 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+3.8 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Java: package-private (no modifier), or leave its package out of `module-info` exports; Kotlin: `internal`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.	+2.3 pts	Medium	Library API & versioning
Resolve the 20 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with FirebaseIndexArray.java, PasswordCredentialHandler.kt, BaseObservableSnapshotArray.java.	+2.3 pts	Medium	Knowledge Freshness
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.	+2.0 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Resolve the 1 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED.	+0.7 pts	Low	Secrets (history)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 49 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 49% mixed · 51% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/VerificationCodeInputField.kt	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.createOrLinkUserWithEmailAndPassword (cyclomatic 22)
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen (cyclomatic 89)
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/AuthProviderButton.kt	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: AuthProviderButtonKt.resolveProviderLabel (cyclomatic 26)
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: MfaChallengeScreenKt.MfaChallengeScreen (cyclomatic 17)
app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt	7.2	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (22 lines × 2)
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): High secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/AuthException.kt	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: AuthException.from (cyclomatic 21)
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ReauthDestinationsKt.reauthDestinations (cyclomatic 16)
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInEmailLinkUI.kt	7.4	Mixed	God Classes: MethodTooLong: SignInEmailLinkUIKt.SignInEmailLinkUI
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (13 lines × 3)
database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen (cyclomatic 37)
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentScreen.kt	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: MfaEnrollmentScreenKt.MfaEnrollmentScreenInternal (cyclomatic 29)
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/EmailAuthScreen.kt	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: EmailAuthScreenKt.EmailAuthScreen (cyclomatic 22)
auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInUI.kt	7.8	Mixed	God Classes: MethodTooLong: SignInUIKt.SignInUI
app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/HighLevelApiDemoActivity.kt	7.8	Mixed	God Classes: MethodTooLong: HighLevelApiDemoActivity.onCreate
app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/AuthFlowControllerDemoActivity.kt	7.8	Mixed	God Classes: MethodTooLong: AuthFlowControllerDemoActivityKt.AuthFlowDemo

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 — 4

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 — 100

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 — 31

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

Could not be resolved — 16

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. 53 of 57 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 57 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D13D15D16D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D34D35D44AX10AX3AX4AX6M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P6PF3S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X5

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, 125 of 135 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16f94-14f1-747f-8029-b6f716dae0c9.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.kt) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.kt) and this repository declares a JVM test suite (repository root, Gradle), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 15 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 50 dependency(ies) and leaving 12 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
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. `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/AuthFlowScope.kt`, `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt`, `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt` 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. Boot via AndroidApp (app). the Android app did not build — `./gradlew :app:assembleDebug` exited 1: ugins.gradle.org/m2/org/jetbrains/kotlinx/kotlinx-serialization-bom/1.6.0/kotlinx-serialization-bom-1.6.0.pom'. > Could not GET 'https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/jetbrains/ko…; runtime evidence skipped (launch chosen because app/build.gradle.kts applies the Android application plugin and gradlew builds it).
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. 'com.google.firebase.database' is imported (app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt:34), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
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. 'com.google.firebase.database' is imported (app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt:34), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. 'com.google.firebase.database' is imported (app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt:34), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. 'com.google.firebase.database' is imported (app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt:34), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Java, Kotlin, Python 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 Kotlin, Python 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.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and no named async function in this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, nor any Go, PHP or Dart function or Kotlin suspend function, makes a request that can be cancelled (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch; net/http, net.Dial; amphp; Dio; Ktor, OkHttp), so there is nothing to judge, 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.
D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D22, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic 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

13 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen at 89. A further 3 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being ErrorRecoveryDialogKt.getRecoveryMessage at 21 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/ErrorRecoveryDialog.kt (ErrorRecoveryDialogKt.getRecoveryMessage at 21). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen (cyclomatic 89)auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt:159

PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen (cyclomatic 37)auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt:137

MfaEnrollmentScreenKt.MfaEnrollmentScreenInternal (cyclomatic 29)auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentScreen.kt:127

AuthProviderButtonKt.resolveProviderLabel (cyclomatic 26)auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/AuthProviderButton.kt:215

EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.createOrLinkUserWithEmailAndPassword (cyclomatic 22)auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:79

+ 8 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 2 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen (cyclomatic 89), PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen (cyclomatic 37). — 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 2 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 7.1 to about 8.2/10, 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 Complexity4.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

28 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen at 127.

compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) · ×10docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-auth/1.2.0_to_2.0.0/compat_report.html:292

FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen (cognitive 127)auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt:159

AuthProviderButtonKt.resolveProviderLabel (cognitive 51)auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/AuthProviderButton.kt:215

PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen (cognitive 50)auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt:137

MfaEnrollmentScreenKt.MfaEnrollmentScreenInternal (cognitive 40)auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentScreen.kt:127

+ 14 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 FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen (cognitive 127). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 4.3 to about 5.6/10.
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 Classes7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

18 god class(es) detected.

MethodTooLong: FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen · ×14auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt:159

FileTooLong: screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt · ×3auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt

ClassTooLong: AuthProviderauth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AuthProvider.kt:106

What to do

Resolve the 14 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with HighLevelApiDemoActivity.kt (2), FirebaseAuthScreen.kt, SignInUI.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with FirebaseAuthScreen.kt, AuthProvider.kt, EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with AuthProvider.kt. — 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 Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 27 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

27 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×2app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:295

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/CustomMethodPickerDemoActivity.kt:93

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInEmailLinkUI.kt:126

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×2auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInUI.kt:192

Duplicated block (37 lines × 2)app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/database/DatabaseDemoActivity.kt:146

+ 18 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt, FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CustomMethodPickerDemoActivity.kt, FirebaseAuthUI.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with SignInEmailLinkUI.kt (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

13 production modules (Gradle), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; edges a convention plugin adds from buildSrc or build-logic are not visible there; 2 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 10 of the 13 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: :storage · ×2

What to do

Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 25 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

13 test methods: 13 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · REDACTED 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

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.5 / 10Stronggated by 8 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt (32×89=2848); auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt (17×37=629); auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/EmailAuthScreen.kt (14×22=308) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/method_picker/AuthMethodPicker.kt (4 of 6 changes were fixes); auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDestinations.kt (3 of 5 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt · ×6auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt:159

Repeated repair: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/method_picker/AuthMethodPicker.kt · ×2auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/method_picker/AuthMethodPicker.kt:100

What to do

Resolve the 6 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with FirebaseAuthScreen.kt, PhoneAuthScreen.kt, EmailAuthScreen.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with AuthMethodPicker.kt, MfaEnrollmentDestinations.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

34 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt. Counted over 93 of the 173 production source files in this repository: 67 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 13 have no attributable history left to measure.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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

1 deducted task-comment markers across 26283 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.

TodoCommentauth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/VerificationCodeInputField.kt:170

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

FirebaseUI documentation is clear and complete for its readers: the root README covers installation, usage, contributing, and licensing; each FirebaseUI module (auth, realtime database, firestore, storage) documents itself independently with a full table of contents and examples. The architecture/upgrade-to-10.x docs are excellent at explaining breaking changes between versions and migration steps. There is no single unshown section to flag as missing because the clip occurs mid-sentence; internal jargon such as 'FirebaseUI.SignInIntentBuilder' is present but not opaque, so it does not trigger an 'internal-focused' finding. FirebaseUI upgrade and release documentation is comprehensive: each version (5.0 through 9.0) has a focused upgrade guide with a detailed dependency list for every module plus release notes; the internal branching and releasing guides are thorough and well-structured; all four upgrade-related documents (upgrade-to-5.0.md, upgrade-to-6.0.md, upgrade-to-7.0.md, upgrade-to-8.0.md) cover breaking changes with a clipped summary that does not invalidate them. This project's documentation consists mostly of detailed binary compatibility reports between Firebase UI libraries (firebase-ui-database and firebase-ui-firestore), each with a problem summary showing added/removed methods, data-type problems, test results, and affected code. The body is clipped mid-reporting; the only visible content is an overview line ('API compatibility report for the firebase-ui-... library') plus a brief 'Added Methods 47' count and method signatures for setIndexedQuery in one document, with no project-level README or architecture docs.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 300 exposed types.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion8.2 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 11 build units (Gradle) 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)8.0 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)7.6 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ 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 7.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 2 medium, 0 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt` (line 701), `gradlew` (line 74, line 178) — 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.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

20 of 106 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseIndexArray.java. Counted over 106 of the 173 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×20database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseIndexArray.java:1

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

What to do

Resolve the 20 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with FirebaseIndexArray.java, PasswordCredentialHandler.kt, BaseObservableSnapshotArray.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (20 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: MainActivity.kt↔FirebaseAuthScreen.kt 50%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: MainActivity.kt ↔ FirebaseAuthScreen.ktapp/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt:1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with MainActivity.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 10 platform declaration(s) and 50 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

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?

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 9 of 13 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.4 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project 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 accuracy9.9 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

CONTRIBUTING.md links to `AUTHORS`, but `AUTHORS` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — CONTRIBUTING.md:271

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: CONTRIBUTING.md links to `AUTHORS`, but `AUTHORS` does not exist.

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?

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

300/344 types (87%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Keep implementation types off the public surface (Java: package-private (no modifier), or leave its package out of `module-info` exports; Kotlin: `internal`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 8303 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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?

S1 · Web-Security Posture8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — and because this repository commits the configuration that serves its own HTTP surface, that configuration could be read in full for the security response headers it sets. Nothing else in this dimension was assessed: the transport, cookie, input-validation and crypto controls are read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository’s language, so their absence here is not a finding about this repository.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. This is reported because `firebase.json` configures this repository's static hosting, including its response headers, so the configuration that would carry these headers is in this repository and was read in full. (−2.0 on this card.) — e2eTest/firebase.json:1

What to do

Set security response headers on the surface this repository serves: an `add_header` directive per header in the nginx/Caddy/Apache config, a `_headers` / `vercel.json` / `netlify.toml` entry for a static host, or `helmet()` in the HTTP server. `Content-Security-Policy` is the one that pays for itself first — it is what contains an injected script once one reaches the page — followed by `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff` and a frame policy (`X-Frame-Options: DENY`, or CSP `frame-ancestors`). Where the app is served from a build container, the header configuration belongs in the image beside the built assets, so it ships with them rather than depending on where it lands.

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?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `NullPointerException` (Java, Kotlin, Scala), `ArgumentError.notNull` (Dart) or `ArgumentNullException` (F#'s `nullArg`) tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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?

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

Other · Code Health — Whether an enhanced `for` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is iterating invalidates the fail-fast iterator it is holding, so the next `next()` throws `ConcurrentModificationException` and the remaining elements are never seen. Whether a `for` loop leaves the `dict`, `set` or `deque` it is walking alone — CPython's iterators over those check that the collection has not changed size since the loop began, so a body that removes from (or empties) the very collection the loop is walking makes the next step raise `RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration` and the remaining items are never seen. Whether a `for (x in c)` or `c.forEach { … }` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a `mutableListOf`/`ArrayList`, `mutableMapOf`/`HashMap` or `mutableSetOf`/`HashSet` is a `java.util` collection on the JVM and is walked by its own fail-fast iterator, so a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is walking makes the next step throw `ConcurrentModificationException` and the remaining elements are never seen.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 handling7.7 / 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.

`catch (e: Exception)` 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. — app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/HighLevelApiDemoActivity.kt:583

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 types9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether Kotlin's null safety is not undermined by not-null assertions — `String` cannot hold null and `String?` must be checked before use in every Kotlin module, and each `!!` is a run-time `NullPointerException` the author has told the compiler cannot happen.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	85%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	91%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	67%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	70%	Adequate — gated by P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	82%	Strong	Solid.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

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

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

X10 Duplicated predicate — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

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

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

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'com.google.firebase.database' (app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt:34) but declares no persisted model this check reads (Room/JPA/Spring Data/MongoDB @Entity and Realm classes, Exposed and Ktorm table columns, CREATE TABLE and ALTER TABLE … ADD columns in SQL migrations and SQLDelight files). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so whether its changes need an audit trail could not be established, and the trail's absence is not scored.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'com.google.firebase.database' (app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt:34) but declares no persisted model this check reads (Room/JPA/Spring Data/MongoDB @Entity and Realm classes, Exposed and Ktorm table columns, CREATE TABLE and ALTER TABLE … ADD columns in SQL migrations and SQLDelight files). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so whether a retention limit applies here could not be established, and its absence is not scored.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'com.google.firebase.database' (app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt:34) but declares no persisted model this check reads (Room/JPA/Spring Data/MongoDB @Entity and Realm classes, Exposed and Ktorm table columns, CREATE TABLE and ALTER TABLE … ADD columns in SQL migrations and SQLDelight files). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so whether data-subject rights apply here could not be established, and their absence is not scored.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 57 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Java 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 Kotlin 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.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No class in this Java code is a Spring, JSR-330 or CDI singleton bean. No class in this Kotlin code is a Spring, JSR-330 or CDI singleton bean. No function in this Python code is served by a threaded web framework (a Flask, Bottle or FastAPI route, a Django or Pyramid view), so no module is shared between request threads.
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
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 Android app did not build — `./gradlew :app:assembleDebug` exited 1: ugins.gradle.org/m2/org/jetbrains/kotlinx/kotlinx-serialization-bom/1.6.0/kotlinx-serialization-bom-1.6.0.pom'. > Could not GET 'https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/jetbrains/ko…; runtime evidence skipped (launch chosen because app/build.gradle.kts applies the Android application plugin and gradlew builds it) This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the app is inaccessible, only that it was never run.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'com.google.firebase.database' (app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt:34) but declares no persisted model this check reads (Room/JPA/Spring Data/MongoDB @Entity and Realm classes, Exposed and Ktorm table columns, CREATE TABLE and ALTER TABLE … ADD columns in SQL migrations and SQLDelight files). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so the absence of a personal-data field here is not evidence that none is stored, and encryption at rest is not scored over a subject that could not be established.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~36948 lines of test source are present (.kt) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .kt suite was found but not re-run
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 15 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 50 dependency(ies) and leaving 12 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 50 declared JVM dependency coordinate(s) were read from its 15 Maven/Gradle manifest(s), but Maven Central could not be asked for the licence of 50 of them (HTTP 429 Too Many Requests from https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/jetbrains/kotlin/kotlin-stdlib-jdk8/2.4.21/kotlin-stdlib-jdk8-2.4.21.pom), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, 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 (.kt), 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.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) and a Gradle version catalogue — not scanned yet).
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 3 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) and a Gradle version catalogue — not scanned yet).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 3 value object(s); 2 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P2 Observability — This repository's JVM source (10 module(s), 152 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JVM, Python source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `@Benchmark` in a Java, Kotlin or Scala file importing JMH or kotlinx-benchmark, Jetpack Benchmark's `measureRepeated` in a file importing androidx.benchmark, or JMH/kotlinx-benchmark/androidx.benchmark in a pom.xml, Gradle or sbt build, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Java and Kotlin code has 28,623 production line(s), 2 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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 — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's Kotlin was read, and it logs through none that an assembled message defeats: Android's `Log` and Timber, java.util.logging and log4j-api-kotlin take one finished message (as log4net does in C#), or it makes no call through a named logger at all. Calls made through SLF4J, log4j 2 or kotlin-logging (`LoggerFactory.getLogger`, `KotlinLogging.logger {}`) would be judged.
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 — 4 finding(s)

D28 · Secrets (history) · High secret · ×1

REDACTED

D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1

Boundary-crossing change coupling: MainActivity.kt ↔ FirebaseAuthScreen.kt app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt:1 — `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/MainActivity.kt` (context main) and `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt` (context auth) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `e752b75d` feat(auth): add isCredentialLinkingEnabled for authenticated users (#…; `e5d5f1d9` fix: Support both Email/Password and Passwordless/Link if enabled (#2… (at that commit the files were still `composeapp/src/main/java/com/firebase/composeapp/MainActivity.kt` and `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/compose/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt`); `af52b848` fix: Email link sign-in (#2263) (at that commit the files were still `composeapp/src/main/java/com/firebase/composeapp/MainActivity.kt` and `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/compose/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt`) — run `git show` on any of them.

Serious — 100 finding(s)

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×14

MethodTooLong: FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt:159 — MethodTooLong — FirebaseAuthScreen runs 536 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 436 over it, 5.36× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: SignInUIKt.SignInUI auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInUI.kt:80 — MethodTooLong — SignInUI runs 170 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 70 over it, 1.70× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ReauthDestinationsKt.reauthDestinations auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt:148 — MethodTooLong — reauthDestinations runs 138 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 38 over it, 1.38× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: HighLevelApiDemoActivity.onCreate app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/HighLevelApiDemoActivity.kt:73 — MethodTooLong — onCreate runs 126 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 26 over it, 1.26× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: SignUpUIKt.SignUpUI auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignUpUI.kt:58 — MethodTooLong — SignUpUI runs 125 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 25 over it, 1.25× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Companion.from auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/AuthException.kt:391 — MethodTooLong — from runs 124 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 24 over it, 1.24× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: AuthFlowControllerDemoActivityKt.AuthFlowDemo app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/AuthFlowControllerDemoActivity.kt:150 — MethodTooLong — AuthFlowDemo runs 115 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.15× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: HighLevelApiDemoActivityKt.AppAuthenticatedContent app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/HighLevelApiDemoActivity.kt:254 — MethodTooLong — AppAuthenticatedContent runs 113 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 13 over it, 1.13× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: MfaEnrollmentDefaultsKt.DefaultMfaEnrollmentContent auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDefaults.kt:75 — MethodTooLong — DefaultMfaEnrollmentContent runs 108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.08× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: SignInEmailLinkUIKt.SignInEmailLinkUI auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInEmailLinkUI.kt:66 — MethodTooLong — SignInEmailLinkUI runs 106 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.06× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EnterVerificationCodeUIKt.EnterVerificationCodeUI auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/EnterVerificationCodeUI.kt:63 — MethodTooLong — EnterVerificationCodeUI runs 106 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.06× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: AuthProviderButtonKt.PreviewAuthProviderButton auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/AuthProviderButton.kt:250 — MethodTooLong — PreviewAuthProviderButton runs 104 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 4 over it, 1.04× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: CountrySelectorKt.CountrySelector auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/CountrySelector.kt:77 — MethodTooLong — CountrySelector runs 102 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.02× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailAndPassword auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:209 — MethodTooLong — signInWithEmailAndPassword runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) · ×10

compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-auth/1.2.0_to_2.0.0/compat_report.html:292 — compat_report.html.initTabs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-auth/2.3.0_to_3.0.0/compat_report.html:292 — compat_report.html.initTabs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-auth/3.3.1_to_4.0.0/compat_report.html:292 — compat_report.html.initTabs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-database/1.2.0_to_2.0.0/compat_report.html:292 — compat_report.html.initTabs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-database/2.3.0_to_3.0.0/compat_report.html:292 — compat_report.html.initTabs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-database/3.3.1_to_4.0.0/compat_report.html:292 — compat_report.html.initTabs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-firestore/3.3.1_to_4.0.0/compat_report.html:292 — compat_report.html.initTabs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-storage/1.2.0_to_2.0.0/compat_report.html:292 — compat_report.html.initTabs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-storage/2.3.0_to_3.0.0/compat_report.html:292 — compat_report.html.initTabs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
compat_report.html.initTabs (cognitive 25) docs/compat_reports/firebase-ui-storage/3.3.1_to_4.0.0/compat_report.html:292 — compat_report.html.initTabs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×6

Hotspot: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt:159 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt changed 32 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 89 in FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen at line 159. 15 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 17 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 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 16:56:07 +01:00' --until='2026-10-21 16:56:07 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt`: 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: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt:137 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt changed 17 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 37 in PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen at line 137. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 13 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 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 16:56:07 +01:00' --until='2026-10-21 16:56:07 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt`: 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: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/EmailAuthScreen.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/EmailAuthScreen.kt:191 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/EmailAuthScreen.kt changed 14 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 22 in EmailAuthScreenKt.EmailAuthScreen at line 191. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 10 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 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 16:56:07 +01:00' --until='2026-10-21 16:56:07 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/EmailAuthScreen.kt`: 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: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentScreen.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentScreen.kt:127 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentScreen.kt changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 29 in MfaEnrollmentScreenKt.MfaEnrollmentScreenInternal at line 127. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 6 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 16:56:07 +01:00' --until='2026-10-21 16:56:07 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentScreen.kt`: 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: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt:148 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in ReauthDestinationsKt.reauthDestinations at line 148. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 8 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 16:56:07 +01:00' --until='2026-10-21 16:56:07 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt`: 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: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:79 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 22 in EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.createOrLinkUserWithEmailAndPassword at line 79. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 5 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 16:56:07 +01:00' --until='2026-10-21 16:56:07 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×3

FileTooLong: screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt — FileTooLong — 836 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 336 over it, 1.67× 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: auth_provider/AuthProvider.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AuthProvider.kt — FileTooLong — 526 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 85% of them inside a single declaration: AuthProvider (106-1066). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 26 over it, 1.05× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt — FileTooLong — 514 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 14 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×2

Repeated repair: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/method_picker/AuthMethodPicker.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/method_picker/AuthMethodPicker.kt:100 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/method_picker/AuthMethodPicker.kt changed 6 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 7 (its worst body is AuthMethodPickerKt.AuthMethodPicker at line 100), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(auth)!: add an Android Lint workflow and gate the Kotlin modules on it (#2498)”; “revert: undo the accidental merge of #2459 and #2478 into master (#2487)”; “fix(auth): pre-fill email when "Continue as" button is tapped (#2423) (#2425)”; “fix(firestore): catch InterruptedException in FirestorePagingSource (#2404)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 16:56:07 +01:00' --until='2026-10-21 16:56:07 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/method_picker/AuthMethodPicker.kt`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Repeated repair: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDestinations.kt auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDestinations.kt:276 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDestinations.kt changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 4 (its worst body is MfaEnrollmentDestinationsKt.enterMfaEnrollment at line 276), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(auth): don't reset MFA enrollment state when already in the flow (#2477)”; “fix(auth): clear MFA enrollment flow state on every entry (#2473)”; “revert: undo the accidental merge of #2459 and #2478 into master (#2487)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 16:56:07 +01:00' --until='2026-10-21 16:56:07 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDestinations.kt`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

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

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:295 — app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:295-312 | app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:373-390 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java:71 — database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java:71-88 | firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/FirestoreRecyclerAdapter.java:127-144 — before extracting anything, compare `database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java` and `firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/FirestoreRecyclerAdapter.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java:71` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

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

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/CustomMethodPickerDemoActivity.kt:93 — app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/CustomMethodPickerDemoActivity.kt:93-107 | app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/HighLevelApiDemoActivity.kt:191-205 — 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 `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/CustomMethodPickerDemoActivity.kt:93` 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 (15 lines × 2) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/FirebaseAuthUI.kt:457 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/FirebaseAuthUI.kt:457-471 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/FirebaseAuthUI.kt:581-595 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/FirebaseAuthUI.kt:457` 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.

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInEmailLinkUI.kt:126 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInEmailLinkUI.kt:126-139 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInUI.kt:157-170 — 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 `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInEmailLinkUI.kt:126` 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 (14 lines × 2) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInEmailLinkUI.kt:177 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInEmailLinkUI.kt:177-190 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInUI.kt:225-238 — 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 `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInEmailLinkUI.kt:177` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInUI.kt:192 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInUI.kt:192-204 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignUpUI.kt:153-165 — 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 `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInUI.kt:192` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:175 — app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:175-187 | app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/PhoneAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:150-162 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt` and `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/PhoneAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 51 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:175` 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.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2

Off the main sequence: :storage — :storage: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: :auth — :auth: abstractness 0.09, instability 0.20, distance 0.71 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen (cyclomatic 89) · ×1

FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen (cyclomatic 89) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt:159 — FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen has cyclomatic complexity 89 (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 · PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen (cyclomatic 37) · ×1

PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen (cyclomatic 37) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt:137 — PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen has cyclomatic complexity 37 (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 · MfaEnrollmentScreenKt.MfaEnrollmentScreenInternal (cyclomatic 29) · ×1

MfaEnrollmentScreenKt.MfaEnrollmentScreenInternal (cyclomatic 29) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentScreen.kt:127 — MfaEnrollmentScreenKt.MfaEnrollmentScreenInternal has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AuthProviderButtonKt.resolveProviderLabel (cyclomatic 26) · ×1

AuthProviderButtonKt.resolveProviderLabel (cyclomatic 26) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/AuthProviderButton.kt:215 — AuthProviderButtonKt.resolveProviderLabel has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.createOrLinkUserWithEmailAndPassword (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.createOrLinkUserWithEmailAndPassword (cyclomatic 22) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:79 — EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.createOrLinkUserWithEmailAndPassword has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmailAuthScreenKt.EmailAuthScreen (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

EmailAuthScreenKt.EmailAuthScreen (cyclomatic 22) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/EmailAuthScreen.kt:191 — EmailAuthScreenKt.EmailAuthScreen has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AuthException.from (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

AuthException.from (cyclomatic 21) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/AuthException.kt:391 — AuthException.from has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailLink (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailLink (cyclomatic 17) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:591 — EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailLink 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 · VerificationCodeInputFieldKt.VerificationCodeInputField (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

VerificationCodeInputFieldKt.VerificationCodeInputField (cyclomatic 17) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/VerificationCodeInputField.kt:86 — VerificationCodeInputFieldKt.VerificationCodeInputField has cyclomatic complexity 17 (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 · MfaChallengeScreenKt.MfaChallengeScreen (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

MfaChallengeScreenKt.MfaChallengeScreen (cyclomatic 17) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt:68 — MfaChallengeScreenKt.MfaChallengeScreen has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailAndPassword (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailAndPassword (cyclomatic 16) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:209 — EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailAndPassword 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 · ReauthDestinationsKt.reauthDestinations (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

ReauthDestinationsKt.reauthDestinations (cyclomatic 16) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt:148 — ReauthDestinationsKt.reauthDestinations 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 · ReauthFlowState.fold (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

ReauthFlowState.fold (cyclomatic 16) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthFlowState.kt:83 — ReauthFlowState.fold has cyclomatic complexity 16 (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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×1

TodoComment auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/VerificationCodeInputField.kt:170 — // TODO: give this group a proper label via AuthUIStringProvider (tracked — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen (cognitive 127) · ×1

FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen (cognitive 127) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt:159 — FirebaseAuthScreenKt.FirebaseAuthScreen has cognitive complexity 127 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 70 (96 pts), boolean chains 16, match/switch 7 (10 pts), error handling 4 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 30). 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 · AuthProviderButtonKt.resolveProviderLabel (cognitive 51) · ×1

AuthProviderButtonKt.resolveProviderLabel (cognitive 51) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/AuthProviderButton.kt:215 — AuthProviderButtonKt.resolveProviderLabel has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (48 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 24). 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 · PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen (cognitive 50) · ×1

PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen (cognitive 50) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt:137 — PhoneAuthScreenKt.PhoneAuthScreen has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (28 pts), match/switch 6 (11 pts), error handling 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 15). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MfaEnrollmentScreenKt.MfaEnrollmentScreenInternal (cognitive 40) · ×1

MfaEnrollmentScreenKt.MfaEnrollmentScreenInternal (cognitive 40) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentScreen.kt:127 — MfaEnrollmentScreenKt.MfaEnrollmentScreenInternal has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (25 pts), error handling 5 (10 pts), match/switch 3, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DatabasePagingSource.loadSingle (cognitive 29) · ×1

DatabasePagingSource.loadSingle (cognitive 29) database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/paging/DatabasePagingSource.java:47 — DatabasePagingSource.loadSingle has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), error handling 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.createOrLinkUserWithEmailAndPassword (cognitive 28) · ×1

EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.createOrLinkUserWithEmailAndPassword (cognitive 28) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:79 — EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.createOrLinkUserWithEmailAndPassword has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (12 pts), error handling 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailAndPassword (cognitive 23) · ×1

EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailAndPassword (cognitive 23) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:209 — EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailAndPassword has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (11 pts), error handling 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 5). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ReauthDestinationsKt.reauthDestinations (cognitive 23) · ×1

ReauthDestinationsKt.reauthDestinations (cognitive 23) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt:148 — ReauthDestinationsKt.reauthDestinations has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 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 · MfaChallengeScreenKt.MfaChallengeScreen (cognitive 22) · ×1

MfaChallengeScreenKt.MfaChallengeScreen (cognitive 22) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt:68 — MfaChallengeScreenKt.MfaChallengeScreen has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (11 pts), error handling 5 (8 pts), match/switch 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AuthException.from (cognitive 21) · ×1

AuthException.from (cognitive 21) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/AuthException.kt:391 — AuthException.from has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), match/switch 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). 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 · EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailLink (cognitive 21) · ×1

EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailLink (cognitive 21) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:591 — EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithEmailLink has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 3 (nesting depth added 4). 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 · EmailAuthScreenKt.EmailAuthScreen (cognitive 20) · ×1

EmailAuthScreenKt.EmailAuthScreen (cognitive 20) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/EmailAuthScreen.kt:191 — EmailAuthScreenKt.EmailAuthScreen has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, boolean chains 5, error handling 4, match/switch 2. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · OAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithProvider (cognitive 19) · ×1

OAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithProvider (cognitive 19) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/OAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:69 — OAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithProvider has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), error handling 5 (6 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). 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 · AuthTextFieldKt.AuthTextField (cognitive 19) · ×1

AuthTextFieldKt.AuthTextField (cognitive 19) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/AuthTextField.kt:98 — AuthTextFieldKt.AuthTextField has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (16 pts), match/switch 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 2). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BaseStringScript.ProcessFile (cognitive 19) · ×1

BaseStringScript.ProcessFile (cognitive 19) scripts/translations/base_string_script.py:36 — BaseStringScript.ProcessFile has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 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 · VerificationCodeInputFieldKt.VerificationCodeInputField (cognitive 18) · ×1

VerificationCodeInputFieldKt.VerificationCodeInputField (cognitive 18) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/VerificationCodeInputField.kt:86 — VerificationCodeInputFieldKt.VerificationCodeInputField has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 3, match/switch 1. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GoogleAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithGoogle (cognitive 17) · ×1

GoogleAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithGoogle (cognitive 17) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/GoogleAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:59 — GoogleAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUIKt.signInWithGoogle has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: error handling 9 (13 pts), if/else 4 (nesting depth added 4). 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 · VerificationCodeInputFieldKt.SingleDigitField (cognitive 17) · ×1

VerificationCodeInputFieldKt.SingleDigitField (cognitive 17) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/VerificationCodeInputField.kt:278 — VerificationCodeInputFieldKt.SingleDigitField has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (12 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1

ClassTooLong: AuthProvider auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AuthProvider.kt:106 — ClassTooLong — 449 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 1 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.12× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (37 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (37 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/database/DatabaseDemoActivity.kt:146 — app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/database/DatabaseDemoActivity.kt:146-182 | app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/firestore/FirestoreDemoActivity.kt:153-189 — 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 `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/database/DatabaseDemoActivity.kt:146` 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.

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

Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt:111 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt:111-138 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt:209-236 — 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 `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt:111` 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 (27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:139 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:139-165 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:306-332 — 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 `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:139` 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 (22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:258 — app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:258-279 | app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/PhoneAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:231-252 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt` and `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/PhoneAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 51 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:258` 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 (20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/database/DatabaseDemoActivity.kt:55 — app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/database/DatabaseDemoActivity.kt:55-74 | app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/firestore/FirestoreDemoActivity.kt:59-78 — 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 `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/database/DatabaseDemoActivity.kt:55` 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 (19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt:139 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt:139-157 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt:238-256 — 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 `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaChallengeScreen.kt:139` 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.

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

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:191 — app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:191-206 | app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/PhoneAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:166-181 — before extracting anything, compare `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt` and `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/PhoneAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 51 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt:191` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/method_picker/AuthMethodPicker.kt:163 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/method_picker/AuthMethodPicker.kt:163-178 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/email/SignInUI.kt:289-302 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 8) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 8) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:187 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:187-199 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:560-572 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:697-709 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/FacebookAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:212-224 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/GoogleAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:186-200 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/OAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:184-198 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/PhoneAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:102-114 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/PhoneAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:156-168 — there are 8 copies across 5 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 8 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:187` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/AuthFlowControllerDemoActivity.kt:194 — app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/AuthFlowControllerDemoActivity.kt:194-208 | app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/CredentialLinkingDemoActivity.kt:110-121 — 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 `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/AuthFlowControllerDemoActivity.kt:194` 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:58 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:58-70 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:495-507 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:819-831 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:58` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 3) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:31 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:31-42 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/GoogleAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:37-47 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/OAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:47-58 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:31` 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 (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDefaults.kt:450 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDefaults.kt:450-460 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDefaults.kt:543-553 — 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 `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDefaults.kt:450` 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 (16 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/AuthChooserActivity.kt:143 — app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/AuthChooserActivity.kt:143-158 | app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/AuthChooserActivity.kt:178-193 | app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/AuthChooserActivity.kt:213-228 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/AuthChooserActivity.kt:143` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 12) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 12) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:56 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:56-65 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:185-194 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:343-352 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:493-502 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:558-567 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:695-704 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:817-826 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/FacebookAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:210-219 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/GoogleAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:184-195 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/OAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:182-193 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/PhoneAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:100-109 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/PhoneAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:154-163 — there are 12 copies across 6 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 12 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AnonymousAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:56` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/GoogleAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:181` calls `emit` and `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/EmailAuthProvider+FirebaseAuthUI.kt:183` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 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 (12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/AuthProviderButton.kt:329 — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/AuthProviderButton.kt:329-340 | auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/AuthProviderButton.kt:343-354 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java:128 — database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java:128-144 | firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/FirestoreRecyclerAdapter.java:105-121 — before extracting anything, compare `database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java` and `firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/FirestoreRecyclerAdapter.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `options` to `FirebaseRecyclerOptions<T>` in one and `FirestoreRecyclerOptions<T>` 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 (8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java:39 — database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java:39-46 | firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/FirestoreRecyclerAdapter.java:36-43 — before extracting anything, compare `database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java` and `firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/FirestoreRecyclerAdapter.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 43 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `options` to `FirebaseRecyclerOptions<T>` in one and `FirestoreRecyclerOptions<T>` 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 (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/paging/DefaultSnapshotDiffCallback.java:33 — database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/paging/DefaultSnapshotDiffCallback.java:33-38 | firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/paging/DefaultSnapshotDiffCallback.java:33-38 — 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 `database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/paging/DefaultSnapshotDiffCallback.java:33` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `newItem` to `DataSnapshot` in one and `DocumentSnapshot` 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.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×1

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/HighLevelApiDemoActivity.kt:583 — `catch (e: Exception)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.

Minor — 31 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×20

Orphaned file database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseIndexArray.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/credentialmanager/PasswordCredentialHandler.kt:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file common/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/common/BaseObservableSnapshotArray.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/mfa/TotpEnrollmentHandler.kt:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseListOptions.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerOptions.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/FirestoreRecyclerAdapter.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/mfa/MfaChallengeContentState.kt:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/components/QrCodeImage.kt:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/FirestoreRecyclerOptions.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseListAdapter.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file lint/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/lint/FirestoreRecyclerAdapterLifecycleDetector.kt:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/FirestoreArray.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseArray.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/util/Preconditions.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/mfa/TotpSecret.kt:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/paging/FirestorePagingAdapter.java:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/mfa/MfaEnrollmentStep.kt:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file scripts/translations/base_string_script.py:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.

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

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 34 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt, auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/configuration/auth_provider/AuthProvider.kt, auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt, auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/AuthState.kt, auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentScreen.kt, app/src/main/java/com/firebaseui/android/demo/auth/EmailAuthSlotDemoActivity.kt, auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt, auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/mfa/MfaEnrollmentDestinations.kt (+26 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

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 11 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 8.2/10. The most over is `auth` (19277 LoC, 290 module-visible types across 18 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.

D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1

REDACTED

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

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 20 of 106 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 106 of the 173 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseIndexArray.java, auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/credentialmanager/PasswordCredentialHandler.kt, common/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/common/BaseObservableSnapshotArray.java, auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/mfa/TotpEnrollmentHandler.kt, database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseListOptions.java, database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerOptions.java, firestore/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/firestore/FirestoreRecyclerAdapter.java, database/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/database/FirebaseRecyclerAdapter.java (and 12 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×1

README/code drift CONTRIBUTING.md:271 — CONTRIBUTING.md links to `AUTHORS`, but `AUTHORS` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 300/344 types (87%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 8303 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×1

No security response headers detected e2eTest/firebase.json:1 — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. This is reported because `firebase.json` configures this repository's static hosting, including its response headers, so the configuration that would carry these headers is in this repository and was read in full. (−2.0 on this card.)

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×1

Duplicated predicate auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt:979 — `authState is AuthState.Loading || authState is AuthState.Reauthentication.Authenticating` appears character-identically in 2 files — auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt, auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/phone/PhoneAuthScreen.kt. 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.

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-5a0703af9ef54c918a5699d1431b68bb/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	1	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-5a0703af9ef54c918a5699d1431b68bb/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 .	3	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)	—	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) and a Gradle version catalogue — not scanned yet).	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 3 file(s) — `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/AuthFlowScope.kt`, `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/FirebaseAuthScreen.kt`, `auth/src/main/java/com/firebase/ui/auth/ui/screens/reauth/ReauthDestinations.kt` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).	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	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)	—	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) and a Gradle version catalogue — not scanned yet).	0	—

Run 01a16f94-14f1-747f-8029-b6f716dae0c9 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 85% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 91% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 67% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 70% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 82% · Strong ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts