Public report — Deedle, published 23 Sep 2026. Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase survey Measured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.15 (frozen) · verify this survey Filed cd_d550ee3585ff4c55ada911aef7138dab Filed 25 September 2026, 05:09 UTC Public

Fslaborg/Deedle

Measured 23 September 2026, 22:54 UTC

coverage not measured
55% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Security 74% Adequate Maturity 70% Adequate Code Health 64% Adequate Architecture 54% Adequate Readiness 50% Weak

Medium · 27,424 LoC · 1 projects · rebuild ~0.3 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (50%)

Findings by grade

27 critical 143 serious 78 minor 37 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
23 September 2026, 22:54 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify, approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said here so the number is checked rather than believed.

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

33/37dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 4 LLM-assisted, advisory
165findings with an exact file:lineof 248 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
37/114dimensions across the health lenses27424 LoC · 1 projects — wide & deep
Chapters

Executive summary

The system holds an adequate standing with a health score of 55%, indicating a workable asset that carries real operational risk. While the codebase is medium-sized with roughly 27,000 lines of production code, its overall reliability is compromised by significant gaps in operational readiness and architectural cohesion. This creates a fragile foundation where minor changes can trigger disproportionate delays and defects, threatening delivery speed and increasing long-term maintenance costs.

The most critical vulnerability lies in operational readiness, which scored only 50%. This lens determines whether the system is safe to operate, tested, and observable. A low score here means the team lacks confidence in deploying changes without regression, directly impacting release velocity and increasing the risk of outages. For a system of this size, the cost of fixing readiness issues is low relative to the value protected, making it the highest-leverage area for immediate improvement. Without addressing this, every release carries an elevated risk of failure, eroding stakeholder trust.

A secondary concern is the velocity tax imposed by code quality. Signals suggest that modifications in weaker areas cost 3–7% more effort than in clean code. This is not a one-time cost but a recurring drag on the team’s capacity, compounding with every change. Over time, this inefficiency translates into higher engineering costs and slower feature delivery. The top-ranked fix for this issue pays for itself within months by reducing this annual drag, offering a clear return on investment through improved developer efficiency.

Despite these risks, the system demonstrates genuine strengths in security posture and code maturity. The security score of 74% indicates that critical exposure is managed, and the maturity score of 70% suggests the code is understandable and maintainable by new team members. These positives provide a stable base from which to address the more urgent readiness and quality issues.

Focus first on resolving the two vulnerable dependencies and improving the release process to prevent bad builds from reaching users. These actions are low-effort but high-impact, immediately reducing security exposure and operational risk. Once these are addressed, the team can tackle the broader code quality issues to restore long-term velocity. The picture is partial, as several key areas like domain modeling and performance were not measured, so this assessment should be updated as more data becomes available.

Code Health 64% Adequate Architecture 54% Adequate · gated by AX10 Maturity 70% Adequate Readiness 50% Weak · gated by D12, P3 Security 74% Adequate · gated by D36
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 50% · 47% weightArchitecture 54% · 26% weightCode Health 64% · 14% weightMaturity 70% · 8% weightSecurity 74% · 4% weight

Raise Readiness 50 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 55 → ~61.

Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (100+)

101 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-08-06) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required. Showing the first 100; the full set is in the report.

  • D1 · LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterStep (cyclomatic 33) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D1 · LookupRangeExecutor.intersect (cyclomatic 25) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D1 · VirtualCsvSource.isOrderedUniqueIndex (cyclomatic 22) src/Deedle/VirtualCsvSource.fs
  • D1 · LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterAddresses (cyclomatic 21) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D1 · VirtualCsvSource.createConcatenatedFrame (cyclomatic 16) src/Deedle/VirtualCsvSource.fs
  • D2 · LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterStep (cognitive 74) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D2 · VirtualCsvSource.isOrderedUniqueIndex (cognitive 71) src/Deedle/VirtualCsvSource.fs
  • D2 · LookupRangeExecutor.intersect (cognitive 42) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D2 · LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterAddresses (cognitive 30) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D2 · VirtualVectorSource.fillMissing (cognitive 25) src/Deedle/Vectors/VirtualVector.fs
  • D2 · CsvParsing.splitCsvLine (cognitive 17) src/Deedle/VirtualCsvSource.fs
  • D2 · CycleInference.tryDetectOptional (cognitive 17) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D2 · LookupRangeExecutor.clipLookupRange (cognitive 17) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D2 · Virtual.MaterializeFloatBatches (cognitive 16) src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs
  • D3 · TooManyMethods: Frame`2 src/Deedle/Frame.fs
  • D3 · TooManyMethods: Series`2 src/Deedle/Series.fs
  • D3 · TooManyMethods: FrameExtensions src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs
  • D3 · TooManyMethods: Stats src/Deedle/Stats.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Deedle/Frame.fs src/Deedle/Frame.fs
  • D3 · TooManyMethods: SeriesExtensions src/Deedle/SeriesExtensions.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Common/Common.fs src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Net/Http.fs src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Deedle/FrameModule.fs src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Deedle/Series.fs src/Deedle/Series.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Deedle/SeriesModule.fs src/Deedle/SeriesModule.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Deedle/FrameUtils.fs src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Deedle.Excel/Excel.fs src/Deedle.Excel/Excel.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Deedle/Stats.fs src/Deedle/Stats.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Vectors/VectorHelpers.fs src/Deedle/Vectors/VectorHelpers.fs
  • D3 · FileTooLong: Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (23–24 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Stats.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Vectors/VirtualVector.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 3) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 6) src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (4–9 lines × 10) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Vectors/VectorHelpers.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Stats.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Series.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/Deedle.ExcelReader/ExcelReader.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Vectors/ArrayVector.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 10) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 9) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Indices/LinearIndex.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Deedle/DelayedSeries.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 10) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 10) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Stats.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Frame.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Stats.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Excel/Excel.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/LinearAlgebra.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs
  • D17 · FileScopedPragmaDisable tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/ArrowTests.cs
  • D17 · FileScopedPragmaDisable tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/ExcelReaderTests.cs
  • D17 · FileScopedPragmaDisable tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Frame.cs
  • D17 · FileScopedPragmaDisable tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/ParquetTests.cs
  • D17 · FileScopedPragmaDisable tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Series.cs
  • D17 · CommentedOutCode tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Series.cs
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D34 · Orphaned knowledge src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs
  • D34 · Orphaned knowledge src/Deedle/Indices/VirtualIndex.fs

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €14,000–€71,000
Cost to rebuild€14,000–€71,000 (0.1–0.4 person-years (234–743 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.8× (at 55% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeMedium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€42,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 50% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

1
Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+7.0 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene
2
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
+7.0 pts · Medium effort · Deployment & Rollback
3
Resolve the 5 FileScopedPragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ArrowTests.cs, ExcelReaderTests.cs, Frame.cs.
+2.1 pts · Low effort · Explicit Debt

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

The top fix pays for itself · REDACTED · Economics
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 2.5–14.8 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~33,466 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–15 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 3–7% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 8,252 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~33,466/year · D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 6.8/10 ⇒ a 3–7% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Low effort ⇒ about 1–3 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 15 months.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 50%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.3 person-years rebuild (27,424 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 50%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.8/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 3–7% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 6.8/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

173 modules, 186 dependencies. 1 dependency cycle across 3 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 133 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →1 Addressing2 Delayed.Ranges3 Internal4 Vectors5 Indices6 Deedle7 Tests.LazySeries8 Delayed9 Excel.XlHelper10 Indices.Linear11 JoinHelpers12 MathNetNumerics.LinearRegression.Fit.Summary13 MicrosoftML14 Ranges15 Reflection16 TestData.ParquetTestData17 VectorHelpers18 Vectors.ArrayVector19 Vectors.VectorHelperExtensions20 MathNetNumerics.LinearRegression.Fit21 MicrosoftML.Extraction22 Ranges.Ranges23 Vectors.Virtual24 Indices.Virtual25 MathNetNumerics.LinearRegression26 Tests.VirtualFrame27 Tests.VirtualPartitionFrame28 Vectors.Virtual.VirtualVectorSource29 Virtual30 Parquet.Virtual.Sources31 Parquet.Virtual.Sources.VirtualParquetExtensions32 Tests.VirtualInstrumentation33 Virtual.Sources.VirtualCsvSource34 Virtual.VirtualFrameDiag35 Parquet.Virtual.Sources.ParquetColumnSource36 Parquet.Virtual.Sources.VirtualParquetSource37 Tests.VirtualCsvSource.InstrumentedCsvSource38 Tests.VirtualInstrumentation.CountingVirtualSource39 Tests.VirtualInstrumentation.SchemeProbe40 VirtualPreservation.Main.Report
1 Addressing
2 Delayed.Ranges
3 Internal
4 Vectors18
5 Indices228
6 Deedle24915
7 Tests.LazySeries11
8 Delayed414714
9 Excel.XlHelper3
10 Indices.Linear53610
11 JoinHelpers122
12 MathNetNumerics.LinearRegression.Fit.Summary2
13 MicrosoftML3
14 Ranges5
15 Reflection115
16 TestData.ParquetTestData1
17 VectorHelpers2717
18 Vectors.ArrayVector238
19 Vectors.VectorHelperExtensions143
20 MathNetNumerics.LinearRegression.Fit41
21 MicrosoftML.Extraction21
22 Ranges.Ranges32
23 Vectors.Virtual63121
24 Indices.Virtual4261012
25 MathNetNumerics.LinearRegression21
26 Tests.VirtualFrame1153
27 Tests.VirtualPartitionFrame1723
28 Vectors.Virtual.VirtualVectorSource2355
29 Virtual198
30 Parquet.Virtual.Sources11
31 Parquet.Virtual.Sources.VirtualParquetExtensions11
32 Tests.VirtualInstrumentation2861
33 Virtual.Sources.VirtualCsvSource133
34 Virtual.VirtualFrameDiag211
35 Parquet.Virtual.Sources.ParquetColumnSource1123
36 Parquet.Virtual.Sources.VirtualParquetSource1113
37 Tests.VirtualCsvSource.InstrumentedCsvSource11
38 Tests.VirtualInstrumentation.CountingVirtualSource11
39 Tests.VirtualInstrumentation.SchemeProbe11
40 VirtualPreservation.Main.Report21
Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself
Deedle.AddressingDeedle.Delayed.RangesDeedle.InternalDeedle.VectorsDeedle.IndicesDeedle…edle.Tests.LazySeriesDeedle.DelayedDeedle.Excel.XlHelperDeedle.Indices.LinearDeedle.JoinHelpers…egression.Fit.SummaryDeedle.MicrosoftMLDeedle.RangesDeedle.Reflection…tData.ParquetTestDataDeedle.VectorHelpers…e.Vectors.ArrayVector…ectorHelperExtensions….LinearRegression.Fit…icrosoftML.ExtractionDeedle.Ranges.RangesDeedle.Vectors.VirtualDeedle.Indices.Virtual…rics.LinearRegression…le.Tests.VirtualFrame…VirtualPartitionFrame…l.VirtualVectorSourceDeedle.Virtual…rquet.Virtual.Sources…tualParquetExtensions…irtualInstrumentation…rces.VirtualCsvSource…tual.VirtualFrameDiag…s.ParquetColumnSource….VirtualParquetSource…InstrumentedCsvSource…CountingVirtualSource…mentation.SchemeProbe…servation.Main.ReportDeedle.Addressing1Deedle.Delayed.Ranges2Deedle.Internal3Deedle.Vectors4Deedle.Indices5Deedle6…edle.Tests.LazySeries7Deedle.Delayed8Deedle.Excel.XlHelper9Deedle.Indices.Linear10Deedle.JoinHelpers11…egression.Fit.Summary12Deedle.MicrosoftML13Deedle.Ranges14Deedle.Reflection15…tData.ParquetTestData16Deedle.VectorHelpers17…e.Vectors.ArrayVector18…ectorHelperExtensions19….LinearRegression.Fit20…icrosoftML.Extraction21Deedle.Ranges.Ranges22Deedle.Vectors.Virtual23Deedle.Indices.Virtual24…rics.LinearRegression25…le.Tests.VirtualFrame26…VirtualPartitionFrame27…l.VirtualVectorSource28Deedle.Virtual29…rquet.Virtual.Sources30…tualParquetExtensions31…irtualInstrumentation32…rces.VirtualCsvSource33…tual.VirtualFrameDiag34…s.ParquetColumnSource35….VirtualParquetSource36…InstrumentedCsvSource37…CountingVirtualSource38…mentation.SchemeProbe39…servation.Main.Report401822824915114147143536101222351151271723814341213263121426101221115317232355198111128611332111123111311111121+133 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 64% · Adequate ·

The Good
D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 7.6 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.2
The Bad
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 6.3 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 6.0
The Ugly
D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 4.9

At a glance — Architecture · 54% · Adequate · gated by AX10 ·

The Good
D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.8 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0
The Bad
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 6.9
The Ugly
AX10 · Repo Code composition 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 70% · Adequate ·

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 7.8 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.4 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 5.5 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 5.6 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0

At a glance — Readiness · 50% · Weak · gated by D12, P3 ·

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0
The Bad
P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0
The Ugly
D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 3.8 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.2 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0
The Bad
D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 5.0
The Ugly
D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A03:2021 — Injection14REDACTED / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components2REDACTED / Critical

Roadmap

First, resolve the two vulnerable dependencies and eliminate five explicit code debt items, starting with the specified test and source files. Next, implement a draft release or manual approval gate to prevent bad builds from reaching users. Finally, improve onboarding and architectural clarity by adding a quick-start section to the README and documenting key design decisions in a dedicated directory.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+7.0 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.+7.0 ptsMediumDeployment & Rollback
Resolve the 5 FileScopedPragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ArrowTests.cs, ExcelReaderTests.cs, Frame.cs.+2.1 ptsLowExplicit Debt
Resolve the 1 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Series.cs.+0.9 ptsLowExplicit Debt
Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Frame.cs.+0.8 ptsLowComment Value
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.+1.5 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).+1.5 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Resolve the 5 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Http.fs, VirtualVector.fs, VirtualFrame.fs.+0.7 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 38 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 79% mixed · 21% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED4.5MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED4.6MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Series.cs5.8MixedExplicit Debt: FileScopedPragmaDisable
src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Implementation.batchesToFrame (cyclomatic 66)
src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Implementation.columnToDataColumn (cyclomatic 42)
src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: FrameUtilsModule.readCsv (cyclomatic 40)
src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterStep (cyclomatic 33)
src/Deedle/Stats.fs7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Stats.interpolateLinearWith (cyclomatic 17)
src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs7.0MixedCognitive Complexity: FrameModule.MeltBy (cognitive 33)
src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: CookieHandling.getAllCookiesFromHeader (cyclomatic 23)
src/Deedle/Frame.fs7.1MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Frame`2.FormatStrings (cyclomatic 26)
src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs7.1MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Seq.alignOrdered (cyclomatic 25)
src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs7.1MixedCyclomatic Complexity: IndexUtilsModule.binarySearch (cyclomatic 16)
tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Frame.cs7.1MixedExplicit Debt: FileScopedPragmaDisable
src/Deedle/Vectors/VirtualVector.fs7.2MixedCyclomatic Complexity: VirtualVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cyclomatic 28)
src/Deedle/Common/Ranges.fs7.2MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Ranges.lookup (cyclomatic 27)
src/Deedle/VirtualCsvSource.fs7.2MixedCyclomatic Complexity: VirtualCsvSource.isOrderedUniqueIndex (cyclomatic 22)
src/Deedle/Series.fs7.2MixedCognitive Complexity: Series`2.FormatStrings (cognitive 27)
src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs7.2MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: FrameExtensions

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 — 27

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 — 143

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 — 78

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

Could not be resolved — 37

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. 33 of 37 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 — 37 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D9D10D11D12D13D15D16D17D19D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36D43D44AX10AX3AX4M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 165 of 248 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0d07a-8746-7e57-9de5-ad1ab92e2d79.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 54 test(s) behind this row are the ones the C# collector could read, and this repository also carries at least 39 test source file(s) (.fs) that it cannot: it parses C# syntax and matches C# test attributes, so a vitest/jest/JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
  • D14 License Compliance — 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 — this repository's projects are MSBuild/NuGet projects, whose package licenses are exactly what this dimension reads, but no license could be resolved for them (the .NET license collector did not run, or restore failed). A gap in the analysis run, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant.
  • D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 6 deducted marker(s) and the 2.0/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (27,424 lines, 100% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — 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. `dotnet build` exited 0, so the repository built; our search of the build output found no first-party assembly to read. That is a gap in how we locate build output, not a property of this repository.
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
  • C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
  • C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
  • C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
  • ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
  • X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations: 1 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

28 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build at 73. 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 HttpHelpers.setHeaders at 43 — 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: src/Deedle.Parquet/VirtualParquetSource.fs (ParquetColumnSource.columnKind at 16). 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.

ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cyclomatic 73)src/Deedle/Vectors/ArrayVector.fs:97
Implementation.batchesToFrame (cyclomatic 66)src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:239
Implementation.columnToArrowArray (cyclomatic 52)src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:48
Implementation.columnToDataColumn (cyclomatic 42)src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:49
Implementation.readColumn (cyclomatic 41)src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:138

+ 23 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cyclomatic 73) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ArrayVector.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Implementation.batchesToFrame (cyclomatic 66) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Arrow.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Implementation.columnToArrowArray (cyclomatic 52) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Arrow.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity4.9 / 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 4.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

45 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Implementation.batchesToFrame at 284.

Implementation.batchesToFrame (cognitive 284)src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:239
ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cognitive 157)src/Deedle/Vectors/ArrayVector.fs:97
Implementation.readColumn (cognitive 104)src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:138
Implementation.columnToArrowArray (cognitive 78)src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:48
LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterStep (cognitive 74)src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:383

+ 40 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Implementation.batchesToFrame (cognitive 284) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Arrow.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cognitive 157) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ArrayVector.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Implementation.readColumn (cognitive 104) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Parquet.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D3 · God Classes7.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

18 god class(es) detected.

FileTooLong: Deedle/Frame.fs · ×13src/Deedle/Frame.fs
TooManyMethods: Frame`2 · ×5src/Deedle/Frame.fs:83

What to do

  1. Resolve the 13 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Frame.fs, Common.fs, Http.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Frame.fs, Series.fs, FrameExtensions.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  3. Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.2 / 10Stronggated by 46 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

46 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×6src/Deedle/Frame.fs:1355
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×5src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:219
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1720
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs:1185
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×3src/Deedle/Indices/LinearIndex.fs:150

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Frame.fs, Stats.fs, Excel.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Arrow.fs, ArrayVector.fs, FrameUtils.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Http.fs, VectorHelpers.fs, Stats.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D5 · Coupling6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

What to do

  1. 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.

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

54 test methods: 54 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 54 tests. Measured on the C# suite only — at least 39 test source file(s) (.fs) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene3.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

66 outdated, 2 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Api · ×2
Outdated: FSharp.Core · ×66

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

11 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs. Counted over 50 of the 61 production source files in this repository: 5 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 6 have no attributable history left to measure.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

What to do

  1. 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 0 LoC in the .NET projects (2.0/KLoC) → score 6.0. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (100% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).

FileScopedPragmaDisable · ×5tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/ArrowTests.cs:1
CommentedOutCodetests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Series.cs:235

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 FileScopedPragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ArrowTests.cs, ExcelReaderTests.cs, Frame.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Series.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository is well documented with README files for Deedle (an easy data/time-series library), NetOffice core/add-in libraries, MiniExcel (a pure C# Snappy port), Snappier (a .NET port of Google's Snappy compression algorithm), and ExcelDataReader (a lightweight .NET Excel reader). Each document is well written with a clear title, purpose, features list, installation instructions, usage examples, and links to the full documentation. The architecture/design docs are present but not shown in this summary. The documentation is comprehensive and well-structured for a .NET SDK ecosystem: the READMEs of each package are long, well-organized, and cover installation, usage examples, architecture (e.g. OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting), migration guidance, troubleshooting, and references to the specification. The packages collectively show 26 documents with an architecture/Docs markdown file, but most are per-package READMEs rather than a unified overview or architecture doc, so the single-architecture-docs gap is not yet filled by visible content. The Azure.Core and Newtonsoft.Json READMEs are exemplary documentation for .NET libraries: the former is a well-structured overview of shared primitives with getting-started, key-concept breakdowns, thread-safety guidance, and an outline; the latter shows serialization examples plus links to NuGet, GitHub releases, and CONTRIBUTING. The System.ClientModel README also appears complete given its clipped trailing marker, while NUnit3TestAdapter's documentation is thorough for a test-adapter project (release dates, MyGet builds, Slack support, release notes). All four projects are well written with clear purpose.

Documentation: no installation or build instructions · ×2README.md

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 99 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D24 · Comment ValueAdequate◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

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

12 valuable / 1 redundant across 27 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commenttests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Frame.cs:199

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Frame.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

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

0 of 1 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

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

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

91 % of calls cross a namespace and 5 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

14 finding(s): 0 critical, 14 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 10 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) charged to Static Analysis (SAST) — the other 10 are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which charges them once. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level, 4 of them charged here).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.2 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

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

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness5.6 / 10Adequate✓ 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 5.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

27 of 56 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs. Counted over 56 of the 61 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned knowledge · ×5src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs
Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Http.fs, VirtualVector.fs, VirtualFrame.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

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 18 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a 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.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — 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 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

  • No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 203643 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: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

What to do

  • Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health64%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Architecture54%Adequate — gated by AX10Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity70%AdequateStrongest area.
Readiness50%Weak — gated by D12, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security74%Adequate — gated by D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 73 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D14 License Compliance — Package licences not resolved for an MSBuild/NuGet repository
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 27k LoC across one project there is no scale to justify any boundaries. No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — no first-party assembly was located after a successful build
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART class graph, and this repository's production source is .fs, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 46 value object(s); 2 domain event(s)
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — reported, not scored — this repository's C# declares no analysable method bodies (a constants, record or DTO assembly), and this score is a density of unfinished work per method, which has no denominator here. The file-level signals below were still collected and are shown in full
  • 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 — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
  • P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) 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 — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • 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 — 27 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×14
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D17 · Explicit Debt · FileScopedPragmaDisable · ×5
  • FileScopedPragmaDisable tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/ArrowTests.cs:1 — #pragma warning disable 1591 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
  • FileScopedPragmaDisable tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/ExcelReaderTests.cs:1 — #pragma warning disable 1591 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
  • FileScopedPragmaDisable tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Frame.cs:1 — #pragma warning disable 1591 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
  • FileScopedPragmaDisable tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/ParquetTests.cs:1 — #pragma warning disable 1591 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
  • FileScopedPragmaDisable tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Series.cs:1 — #pragma warning disable 1591 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×5
  • Orphaned knowledge src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge src/Deedle/Vectors/VirtualVector.fs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge src/Deedle.Excel/Excel.fs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge src/Deedle/Indices/VirtualIndex.fs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×2
  • Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Api — REDACTED — Moderate severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: Snappier — REDACTED — REDACTED severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED CVE · ×1
  • REDACTED
Serious — 143 finding(s)
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×13
  • FileTooLong: Deedle/Frame.fs src/Deedle/Frame.fs — FileTooLong — 935 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 435 over it, 1.87× 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: Common/Common.fs src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs — FileTooLong — 858 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 34 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 358 over it, 1.72× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: Net/Http.fs src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs — FileTooLong — 779 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 46 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 279 over it, 1.56× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: Deedle/FrameModule.fs src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs — FileTooLong — 776 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 147 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 276 over it, 1.55× 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: Deedle/Series.fs src/Deedle/Series.fs — FileTooLong — 726 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 226 over it, 1.45× 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: Deedle/SeriesModule.fs src/Deedle/SeriesModule.fs — FileTooLong — 615 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 147 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 115 over it, 1.23× 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: Deedle/FrameUtils.fs src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs — FileTooLong — 574 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 74 over it, 1.15× 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: Deedle.Excel/Excel.fs src/Deedle.Excel/Excel.fs — FileTooLong — 573 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 45 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 73 over it, 1.15× 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: Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs — FileTooLong — 531 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 31 over it, 1.06× 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: Deedle/Stats.fs src/Deedle/Stats.fs — FileTooLong — 529 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.06× 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: Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs — FileTooLong — 526 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 26 over it, 1.05× 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: Vectors/VectorHelpers.fs src/Deedle/Vectors/VectorHelpers.fs — FileTooLong — 521 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 21 over it, 1.04× 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: Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs — FileTooLong — 501 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.00× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Frame.fs:1355 — src/Deedle/Frame.fs:1355-1359 | src/Deedle/Series.fs:1270-1274 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Stats.fs:948 — src/Deedle/Stats.fs:948-952 | src/Deedle/Stats.fs:994-998 — 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 (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Excel/Excel.fs:412 — src/Deedle.Excel/Excel.fs:412-416 | src/Deedle.Excel/Excel.fs:423-427 — 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 (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/LinearAlgebra.fs:257 — src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/LinearAlgebra.fs:257-261 | src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/LinearAlgebra.fs:272-276 — 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 (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:580 — src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:580-584 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:477-481 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:316 — src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:316-320 | src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:345-349 — 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 `src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:316` 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.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×5
  • TooManyMethods: Frame`2 src/Deedle/Frame.fs:83 — TooManyMethods — 154 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 124 over it, 5.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: Series`2 src/Deedle/Series.fs:58 — TooManyMethods — 150 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 120 over it, 5.00× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: FrameExtensions src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs:849 — TooManyMethods — 81 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 51 over it, 2.70× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: Stats src/Deedle/Stats.fs:417 — TooManyMethods — 67 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 37 over it, 2.23× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: SeriesExtensions src/Deedle/SeriesExtensions.fs:213 — TooManyMethods — 55 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 25 over it, 1.83× 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 (7 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:219 — src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:219-225 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:391-397 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Vectors/ArrayVector.fs:337 — src/Deedle/Vectors/ArrayVector.fs:337-343 | src/Deedle/Vectors/VectorHelpers.fs:324-330 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note 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.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:534 — src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:534-540 | src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:548-554 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:532` calls `Write` and `src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:546` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1972 — src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1972-1978 | src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:2013-2019 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:18 — src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:18-24 | src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:87-93 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1720 — src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1720-1728 | src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1744-1752 — 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 `src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1720` 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 (9 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Vectors/VectorHelpers.fs:70 — src/Deedle/Vectors/VectorHelpers.fs:70-78 | src/Deedle/Vectors/VectorHelpers.fs:113-121 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Stats.fs:882 — src/Deedle/Stats.fs:882-890 | src/Deedle/Stats.fs:905-913 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:372 — src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:372-381 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:429-437 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs:1185 — src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs:1185-1192 | src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs:1241-1251 — 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 `src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs:1241` 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. 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.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Series.fs:847 — src/Deedle/Series.fs:847-854 | src/Deedle/Series.fs:870-877 — 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 `src/Deedle/Series.fs:847` 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. 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.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1201 — src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1201-1208 | src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1211-1218 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1191 — src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1191-1198 | src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1211-1218 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Indices/LinearIndex.fs:150 — src/Deedle/Indices/LinearIndex.fs:150-155 | src/Deedle/Indices/LinearIndex.fs:162-167 — 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 (6 lines × 2) src/Deedle/DelayedSeries.fs:50 — src/Deedle/DelayedSeries.fs:50-55 | src/Deedle/DelayedSeries.fs:135-141 — 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 `src/Deedle/DelayedSeries.fs:135` 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. 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.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs:114 — src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs:114-119 | src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs:148-153 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs:1573 — src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs:1573-1577 | src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs:1589-1593 | src/Deedle/FrameExtensions.fs:1595-1599 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Stats.fs:218 — src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Stats.fs:218-222 | src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Stats.fs:231-235 | src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Stats.fs:244-248 — 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 `src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Stats.fs:218` 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 (5 lines × 3) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:18 — src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:18-22 | src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:54-58 | src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:87-91 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:413 — src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:413-428 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:341-357 — 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 `src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:341` 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.
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1828 — src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1828-1846 | src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1852-1867 — 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 (15 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:213 — src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:213-227 | src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:232-246 — 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 `src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:213` 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 (15 lines × 2) src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs:265 — src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs:265-279 | src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs:327-341 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 10) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 10) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:52 — src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:52-56 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:59-63 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:66-70 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:73-77 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:80-84 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:87-91 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:94-98 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:101-105 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:108-112 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:115-119 — all 10 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 10) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:52 — src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:52-56 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:58-62 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:64-68 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:70-74 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:76-80 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:82-86 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:88-92 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:94-98 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:100-104 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:106-110 — all 10 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cyclomatic 73) · ×1
  • ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cyclomatic 73) src/Deedle/Vectors/ArrayVector.fs:97 — ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build has cyclomatic complexity 73 (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 · Implementation.batchesToFrame (cyclomatic 66) · ×1
  • Implementation.batchesToFrame (cyclomatic 66) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:239 — Implementation.batchesToFrame has cyclomatic complexity 66 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Implementation.columnToArrowArray (cyclomatic 52) · ×1
  • Implementation.columnToArrowArray (cyclomatic 52) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:48 — Implementation.columnToArrowArray has cyclomatic complexity 52 (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 · Implementation.columnToDataColumn (cyclomatic 42) · ×1
  • Implementation.columnToDataColumn (cyclomatic 42) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:49 — Implementation.columnToDataColumn has cyclomatic complexity 42 (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 · Implementation.readColumn (cyclomatic 41) · ×1
  • Implementation.readColumn (cyclomatic 41) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:138 — Implementation.readColumn has cyclomatic complexity 41 (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 · FrameUtilsModule.readCsv (cyclomatic 40) · ×1
  • FrameUtilsModule.readCsv (cyclomatic 40) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:613 — FrameUtilsModule.readCsv has cyclomatic complexity 40 (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 · Implementation.arrowArrayToVector (cyclomatic 33) · ×1
  • Implementation.arrowArrayToVector (cyclomatic 33) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:147 — Implementation.arrowArrayToVector has cyclomatic complexity 33 (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 · LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterStep (cyclomatic 33) · ×1
  • LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterStep (cyclomatic 33) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:383 — LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterStep has cyclomatic complexity 33 (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 · VirtualVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cyclomatic 28) · ×1
  • VirtualVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cyclomatic 28) src/Deedle/Vectors/VirtualVector.fs:582 — VirtualVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build has cyclomatic complexity 28 (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 · Ranges.lookup (cyclomatic 27) · ×1
  • Ranges.lookup (cyclomatic 27) src/Deedle/Common/Ranges.fs:248 — Ranges.lookup has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Frame`2.FormatStrings (cyclomatic 26) · ×1
  • Frame`2.FormatStrings (cyclomatic 26) src/Deedle/Frame.fs:1323 — Frame`2.FormatStrings has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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 · LookupRangeExecutor.intersect (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • LookupRangeExecutor.intersect (cyclomatic 25) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:525 — LookupRangeExecutor.intersect has cyclomatic complexity 25 (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 · Seq.alignOrdered (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • Seq.alignOrdered (cyclomatic 25) src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs:1136 — Seq.alignOrdered has cyclomatic complexity 25 (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 · FrameUtilsModule.writeCsv (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • FrameUtilsModule.writeCsv (cyclomatic 23) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:297 — FrameUtilsModule.writeCsv has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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 · Ranges.restrictRanges (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • Ranges.restrictRanges (cyclomatic 23) src/Deedle/Common/Ranges.fs:174 — Ranges.restrictRanges has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CookieHandling.getAllCookiesFromHeader (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • CookieHandling.getAllCookiesFromHeader (cyclomatic 23) src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1387 — CookieHandling.getAllCookiesFromHeader has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: HttpHelpers.setHeaders (cyclomatic 43) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Http.InnerRequest (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • Http.InnerRequest (cyclomatic 23) src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1505 — Http.InnerRequest has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: HttpHelpers.setHeaders (cyclomatic 43) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · VirtualCsvSource.isOrderedUniqueIndex (cyclomatic 22) · ×1
  • VirtualCsvSource.isOrderedUniqueIndex (cyclomatic 22) src/Deedle/VirtualCsvSource.fs:276 — VirtualCsvSource.isOrderedUniqueIndex has cyclomatic complexity 22 (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 · LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterAddresses (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterAddresses (cyclomatic 21) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:446 — LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterAddresses has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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 · Reflection.expandVector (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • Reflection.expandVector (cyclomatic 20) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:152 — Reflection.expandVector has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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 · Ranges.flattenRanges (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • Ranges.flattenRanges (cyclomatic 18) src/Deedle/DelayedSeries.fs:48 — Ranges.flattenRanges has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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 · Stats.interpolateLinearWith (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • Stats.interpolateLinearWith (cyclomatic 17) src/Deedle/Stats.fs:974 — Stats.interpolateLinearWith has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · JoinHelpers.createJoinTransformation (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • JoinHelpers.createJoinTransformation (cyclomatic 17) src/Deedle/JoinHelpers.fs:68 — JoinHelpers.createJoinTransformation 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 · VirtualCsvSource.createConcatenatedFrame (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • VirtualCsvSource.createConcatenatedFrame (cyclomatic 16) src/Deedle/VirtualCsvSource.fs:434 — VirtualCsvSource.createConcatenatedFrame 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · IndexUtilsModule.binarySearch (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • IndexUtilsModule.binarySearch (cyclomatic 16) src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs:21 — IndexUtilsModule.binarySearch 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 · FrameUtilsModule.jsonFormatValue (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • FrameUtilsModule.jsonFormatValue (cyclomatic 16) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:457 — FrameUtilsModule.jsonFormatValue 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 · FrameUtilsModule.writeJson (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • FrameUtilsModule.writeJson (cyclomatic 16) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:503 — FrameUtilsModule.writeJson 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 · LinearIndexBuilder.Deedle.Indices.IIndexBuilder.Resample (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • LinearIndexBuilder.Deedle.Indices.IIndexBuilder.Resample (cyclomatic 16) src/Deedle/Indices/LinearIndex.fs:352 — LinearIndexBuilder.Deedle.Indices.IIndexBuilder.Resample 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.
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×1
  • CommentedOutCode tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Series.cs:235 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Implementation.batchesToFrame (cognitive 284) · ×1
  • Implementation.batchesToFrame (cognitive 284) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:239 — Implementation.batchesToFrame has cognitive complexity 284 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 30 (158 pts), if/else 30 (114 pts), match/switch 3 (12 pts) (nesting depth added 221). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs holds 3 of the 45 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 362 of the 1247 points over it (29%), 2.5× the next-largest file (src/Deedle/Vectors/ArrayVector.fs at 142). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cognitive 157) · ×1
  • ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cognitive 157) src/Deedle/Vectors/ArrayVector.fs:97 — ArrayVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build has cognitive complexity 157 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31 (82 pts), loops 12 (43 pts), match/switch 10 (23 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 95). 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 · Implementation.readColumn (cognitive 104) · ×1
  • Implementation.readColumn (cognitive 104) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:138 — Implementation.readColumn has cognitive complexity 104 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 66 (103 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 37). 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 · Implementation.columnToArrowArray (cognitive 78) · ×1
  • Implementation.columnToArrowArray (cognitive 78) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:48 — Implementation.columnToArrowArray has cognitive complexity 78 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 13 (39 pts), loops 13 (26 pts), if/else 13 (nesting depth added 39). 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs holds 3 of the 45 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 362 of the 1247 points over it (29%), 2.5× the next-largest file (src/Deedle/Vectors/ArrayVector.fs at 142). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterStep (cognitive 74) · ×1
  • LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterStep (cognitive 74) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:383 — LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterStep has cognitive complexity 74 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31 (63 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 37). 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 · VirtualCsvSource.isOrderedUniqueIndex (cognitive 71) · ×1
  • VirtualCsvSource.isOrderedUniqueIndex (cognitive 71) src/Deedle/VirtualCsvSource.fs:276 — VirtualCsvSource.isOrderedUniqueIndex has cognitive complexity 71 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (42 pts), match/switch 4 (23 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 48). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Ranges.lookup (cognitive 60) · ×1
  • Ranges.lookup (cognitive 60) src/Deedle/Common/Ranges.fs:248 — Ranges.lookup has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (41 pts), loops 2 (10 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 25). 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 · FrameUtilsModule.readCsv (cognitive 57) · ×1
  • FrameUtilsModule.readCsv (cognitive 57) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:613 — FrameUtilsModule.readCsv has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (34 pts), match/switch 8 (13 pts), loops 5 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 18). 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 · Seq.alignOrdered (cognitive 49) · ×1
  • Seq.alignOrdered (cognitive 49) src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs:1136 — Seq.alignOrdered has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (36 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 3 (5 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 19). 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 · Implementation.arrowArrayToVector (cognitive 45) · ×1
  • Implementation.arrowArrayToVector (cognitive 45) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:147 — Implementation.arrowArrayToVector has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (42 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 15). 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs holds 3 of the 45 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 362 of the 1247 points over it (29%), 2.5× the next-largest file (src/Deedle/Vectors/ArrayVector.fs at 142). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Frame`2.FormatStrings (cognitive 44) · ×1
  • Frame`2.FormatStrings (cognitive 44) src/Deedle/Frame.fs:1323 — Frame`2.FormatStrings has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (20 pts), loops 10 (20 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 13). 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 · LinearIndexBuilder.Deedle.Indices.IIndexBuilder.Resample (cognitive 44) · ×1
  • LinearIndexBuilder.Deedle.Indices.IIndexBuilder.Resample (cognitive 44) src/Deedle/Indices/LinearIndex.fs:352 — LinearIndexBuilder.Deedle.Indices.IIndexBuilder.Resample has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (32 pts), match/switch 5 (11 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LookupRangeExecutor.intersect (cognitive 42) · ×1
  • LookupRangeExecutor.intersect (cognitive 42) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:525 — LookupRangeExecutor.intersect has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (33 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Implementation.columnToDataColumn (cognitive 42) · ×1
  • Implementation.columnToDataColumn (cognitive 42) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:49 — Implementation.columnToDataColumn has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 14 (28 pts), if/else 14 (nesting depth added 14). 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 · Reflection.expandVector (cognitive 40) · ×1
  • Reflection.expandVector (cognitive 40) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:152 — Reflection.expandVector has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 5 (18 pts), match/switch 5 (14 pts), if/else 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 25). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Ranges.restrictRanges (cognitive 39) · ×1
  • Ranges.restrictRanges (cognitive 39) src/Deedle/Common/Ranges.fs:174 — Ranges.restrictRanges has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (29 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FrameUtilsModule.writeJson (cognitive 37) · ×1
  • FrameUtilsModule.writeJson (cognitive 37) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:503 — FrameUtilsModule.writeJson has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (21 pts), loops 6 (15 pts), match/switch 1 (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 · CookieHandling.getAllCookiesFromHeader (cognitive 37) · ×1
  • CookieHandling.getAllCookiesFromHeader (cognitive 37) src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1387 — CookieHandling.getAllCookiesFromHeader has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (26 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 3 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Pluralizer.adjustCase (cognitive 35) · ×1
  • Pluralizer.adjustCase (cognitive 35) src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/CommonRuntime/Pluralizer.fs:190 — Pluralizer.adjustCase has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (32 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 19). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FrameModule.MeltBy (cognitive 33) · ×1
  • FrameModule.MeltBy (cognitive 33) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:806 — FrameModule.MeltBy has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (25 pts), loops 3 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 20). 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 · LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterAddresses (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterAddresses (cognitive 30) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:446 — LookupRangeExecutor.remapLookupRangeAfterAddresses has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (11 pts), if/else 4 (10 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Seq.alignAllOrderedFew (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • Seq.alignAllOrderedFew (cognitive 30) src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs:1247 — Seq.alignAllOrderedFew has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (19 pts), error handling 1 (4 pts), loops 4, match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Implementation.rowGroupsToFrame (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • Implementation.rowGroupsToFrame (cognitive 29) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:296 — Implementation.rowGroupsToFrame has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (15 pts), if/else 8 (14 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VirtualVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cognitive 28) · ×1
  • VirtualVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build (cognitive 28) src/Deedle/Vectors/VirtualVector.fs:582 — VirtualVectorBuilder.Deedle.Vectors.IVectorBuilder.Build has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 10 (17 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), if/else 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 11). 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 · Extraction.extractColData (cognitive 28) · ×1
  • Extraction.extractColData (cognitive 28) src/Deedle.MicrosoftML/DataView.fs:80 — Extraction.extractColData has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (28 pts) (nesting depth added 21). 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 · IndexUtilsModule.binarySearch (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • IndexUtilsModule.binarySearch (cognitive 27) src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs:21 — IndexUtilsModule.binarySearch has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (22 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Series`2.FormatStrings (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • Series`2.FormatStrings (cognitive 27) src/Deedle/Series.fs:1268 — Series`2.FormatStrings has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 3 (11 pts), if/else 8 (9 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FrameUtilsModule.jsonFormatValue (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • FrameUtilsModule.jsonFormatValue (cognitive 25) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:457 — FrameUtilsModule.jsonFormatValue has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (21 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 7). 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 · VirtualVectorSource.fillMissing (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • VirtualVectorSource.fillMissing (cognitive 25) src/Deedle/Vectors/VirtualVector.fs:449 — VirtualVectorSource.fillMissing has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). 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 · FrameUtilsModule.writeCsv (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • FrameUtilsModule.writeCsv (cognitive 24) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:297 — FrameUtilsModule.writeCsv has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), match/switch 5 (7 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VectorHelpers.createTypedRowCreator (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • VectorHelpers.createTypedRowCreator (cognitive 23) src/Deedle/Vectors/VectorHelpers.fs:575 — VectorHelpers.createTypedRowCreator has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 10). 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 · Excel.GetFsiSeriesAndFrames (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • Excel.GetFsiSeriesAndFrames (cognitive 23) src/Deedle.Excel/Excel.fs:643 — Excel.GetFsiSeriesAndFrames has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (11 pts), match/switch 1 (6 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 15). 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 · FrameModule.Unstack (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • FrameModule.Unstack (cognitive 20) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:941 — FrameModule.Unstack has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 5 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Seq.startAndEnd (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • Seq.startAndEnd (cognitive 20) src/Deedle/Common/Common.fs:808 — Seq.startAndEnd has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (11 pts), loops 4 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 6). 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 · Reflection.expandDictionary (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • Reflection.expandDictionary (cognitive 19) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:117 — Reflection.expandDictionary has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Http.InnerRequest (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • Http.InnerRequest (cognitive 19) src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1505 — Http.InnerRequest has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, match/switch 7, loops 2 (3 pts) (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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Stats.interpolateLinearWith (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • Stats.interpolateLinearWith (cognitive 18) src/Deedle/Stats.fs:974 — Stats.interpolateLinearWith has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (11 pts), if/else 6 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 7). 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 · JoinHelpers.createJoinTransformation (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • JoinHelpers.createJoinTransformation (cognitive 18) src/Deedle/JoinHelpers.fs:68 — JoinHelpers.createJoinTransformation has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 7, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 3). 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 · CsvParsing.splitCsvLine (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • CsvParsing.splitCsvLine (cognitive 17) src/Deedle/VirtualCsvSource.fs:14 — CsvParsing.splitCsvLine has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CycleInference.tryDetectOptional (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • CycleInference.tryDetectOptional (cognitive 17) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:148 — CycleInference.tryDetectOptional has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (9 pts), if/else 4 (5 pts), loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). 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 · LookupRangeExecutor.clipLookupRange (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • LookupRangeExecutor.clipLookupRange (cognitive 17) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:351 — LookupRangeExecutor.clipLookupRange has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 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 · FrameUtilsModule.expandVectors (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • FrameUtilsModule.expandVectors (cognitive 17) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:764 — FrameUtilsModule.expandVectors has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Frame`2.Zip (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • Frame`2.Zip (cognitive 17) src/Deedle/Frame.fs:209 — Frame`2.Zip has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (9 pts), if/else 4 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 9). 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 · Virtual.MaterializeFloatBatches (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • Virtual.MaterializeFloatBatches (cognitive 16) src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs:383 — Virtual.MaterializeFloatBatches has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), match/switch 4 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Stats.quantile (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • Stats.quantile (cognitive 16) src/Deedle/Stats.fs:816 — Stats.quantile has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23–24 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (23–24 lines × 2) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:394 — src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:394-416 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:439-462 — 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 (19 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Stats.fs:608 — src/Deedle/Stats.fs:608-626 | src/Deedle/Stats.fs:627-645 — 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 (15–16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) src/Deedle/Vectors/VirtualVector.fs:326 — src/Deedle/Vectors/VirtualVector.fs:326-341 | src/Deedle/Vectors/VirtualVector.fs:420-434 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 3) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1979 — src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1979-1993 | src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:1999-2012 | src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:2020-2034 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:332 — src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:332-346 | src/Deedle/FrameUtils.fs:446-457 — 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. 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 (14–15 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs:281 — src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs:281-294 | src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs:343-357 — 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 `src/Deedle/VirtualFrame.fs:281` 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. 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 (13–14 lines × 6) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 6) src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1624 — src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1624-1637 | src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1647-1660 | src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1676-1688 | src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1705-1718 | src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1729-1742 | src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Net/Http.fs:1753-1765 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:89 — src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:89-101 | src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:115-127 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:2041 — src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:2041-2051 | src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:2058-2069 — 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 `src/Deedle/FrameModule.fs:2041` 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 (4–9 lines × 10) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (4–9 lines × 10) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:152 — src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:152-155 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:157-165 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:168-176 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:179-187 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:190-198 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:201-209 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:212-220 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:223-231 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:234-242 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:245-253 — all 10 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 `src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:157` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:165` calls `n` and `src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:155` does not — after which the two agree again for 5 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 (8–9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:149 — src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:149-157 | src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:175-182 — 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 `src/Deedle/VirtualLookupRange.fs:149` 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. 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 (7 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/Deedle.ExcelReader/ExcelReader.fs:36 — src/Deedle.ExcelReader/ExcelReader.fs:36-42 | src/Deedle.ExcelReader/ExcelReader.fs:56-62 | src/Deedle.ExcelReader/ExcelReader.fs:77-83 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 10) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 10) src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:157 — src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:157-162 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:168-173 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:179-184 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:190-195 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:201-206 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:212-217 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:223-228 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:234-239 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:245-250 | src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:256-261 — all 10 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 `src/Deedle.Parquet/Parquet.fs:157` 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 (6 lines × 9) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 9) src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:52 — src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:52-57 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:59-64 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:66-71 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:73-78 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:80-85 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:87-92 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:94-99 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:101-106 | src/Deedle.Arrow/Arrow.fs:108-113 — all 9 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:20 — src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:20-25 | src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:89-94 | src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Finance.fs:115-120 — 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.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
Minor — 12 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×2
  • Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md — The Deedle library's build steps (restore, paket restore, ./build.sh / .\build.ps1) and the NuGet badge links appear only inline; no install or setup section. Add an Install/Setup section covering prerequisites (.NET SDK 9.0+), dotnet tool restore, and the exact commands for building on Linux/Mac and Windows.
  • Documentation: no architecture or design documentation README.md — The architecture/design docs are present but not shown in this summary; no documentation for the Parquet.Net library's internal structure or cross-package dependencies. Add an Architecture/Design section covering supported .NET targets, file format handling, and how low-, high-, and untyped APIs interact.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 1 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/Deedle/Common/Address.fs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1
  • redundant comment tests/Deedle.CSharp.Tests/Frame.cs:199 — "Run this twice, to check that instance references are right" —
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
  • Further orphaned files (smaller) — 22 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than raised one row each — most significant first: src/Deedle/Common/Ranges.fs, src/Deedle/Vectors/Vector.fs, src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/LinearRegression.fs, src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/Csv/CsvRuntime.fs, src/Deedle/Indices/MultiKey.fs, src/Deedle/FSharp.Data/CommonRuntime/StructuralInference.fs, src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/Stats.fs, src/Deedle.MathNetNumerics/LinearAlgebra.fs (and 14 more) (27 orphaned of 56 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 56 of the 61 production source files in this repository met that bar). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1
  • No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 203643 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.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1
  • No release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.
Minor — 66 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×66
  • Outdated: FSharp.Core — FSharp.Core 10.1.201 → 10.1.401 available (referenced by Deedle).
  • Outdated: NetOfficeFw.Core — NetOfficeFw.Core 1.9.9 → 1.9.11 available (referenced by Deedle.Excel).
  • Outdated: NetOfficeFw.Excel — NetOfficeFw.Excel 1.9.9 → 1.9.11 available (referenced by Deedle.Excel).
  • Outdated: MathNet.Numerics.FSharp — MathNet.Numerics.FSharp 4.15.0 → 5.0.0 available (referenced by Deedle.MathNetNumerics).
  • Outdated: System.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource — System.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.MathNetNumerics).
  • Outdated: Azure.Core — Azure.Core 1.52.0 → 1.62.0 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Azure.Monitor.OpenTelemetry.Exporter — Azure.Monitor.OpenTelemetry.Exporter 1.7.0 → 1.9.0 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: FsCheck — FsCheck 3.3.2 → 3.4.0 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.ApplicationInsights — Microsoft.ApplicationInsights 3.0.0 → 3.1.2 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces — Microsoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.CodeCoverage — Microsoft.CodeCoverage 18.3.0 → 18.10.1 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration — Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder — Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyModel — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyModel 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.Abstractions 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.FileProviders.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.FileProviders.Abstractions 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Configuration — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Configuration 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options — Microsoft.Extensions.Options 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options.ConfigurationExtensions — Microsoft.Extensions.Options.ConfigurationExtensions 10.0.5 → 10.0.12 available (referenced by Deedle.Tests).
  • + 41 more in this group — see findings.md.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-4f0021278aaa42f4838282eb693d096f/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/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-4f0021278aaa42f4838282eb693d096f/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/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 .14artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list Deedle.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json2artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—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 Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciesdotnet—dotnet list Deedle.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json0artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json

Run 01a0d07a-8746-7e57-9de5-ad1ab92e2d79 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 27 · Warnings: 143 · Recommendations: 12 · Info: 66 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-09-2026 @ 22:54 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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