Public report — XPlot, published 6 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
79findings with an exact file:lineof 85 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
27/95dimensions across the health lenses10477 LoC — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
fslaborg/XPlot is sound in substance but carries real gaps (52%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Architecture (100%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Security (95%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Maturity (43%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Accessibility (44%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation); text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative… (Text alternatives); accessibility in the test suite you already have (A11y enforcement).
For scale: Small (~10,477 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth 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.
0.7× (at 52% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€15,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 43% — 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 0.7× 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 3 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Configuration.fs, Main.fs, Deedle.fs.
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 `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 43%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity 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: 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 `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ 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 `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Architecture — module dependency matrix
31 modules, 47 dependencies — 1 dependency cycle, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. 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.)
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration
7
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by documenting significant architectural decisions in a central, dated repository to establish clear context and consequences. Next, ensure all media elements have appropriate text alternatives and enforce accessibility in your existing test suite to prevent future regressions. Finally, improve page structure by adding required landmarks and titles, while also addressing visual safety by maintaining focus styles, respecting reduced motion preferences, and ensuring sufficient color contrast.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 3 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Configuration.fs, Main.fs, Deedle.fs.
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 `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
Enforce accessibility in the test suite you already have: assert the accessibility invariants over the HTML your app renders — parse the rendered output in an existing test, or drive a real browser from one — and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
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. 25 of 27 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.4 — 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 — 27 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 79 of 85 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
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.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — 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.
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.
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.
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.
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").
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These 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.
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.
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.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes8.8 / 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.
Resolve the 2 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Deedle.fs, Main.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Configuration.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
+ 27 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 10 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Configuration.fs (2), Main.fs (2), Xaxis.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Angularaxis.fs, Textfont.fs, Scattergl.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Configuration.fs (4), Projection.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
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.
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.
XPlot's documentation is adequate but thin and somewhat stale. The README gives a one-line status ('largely 'done' project; use Plotly.NET for complete charting) plus links to NuGet badges, the Binder try-in button, Gitpod quickstart, and a brief plotly/google-charts namespace list with a license/3D surface example. A dedicated architecture/design doc is present but only outlines sections (Try XPlot in your browser; Contributing; Gitpod quickstart; Local development) rather than explaining how to use the API or what features are supported beyond the examples, leaving the reader guessing about the package's capabilities.
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10. — XPlot's documentation is adequate but thin and somewhat stale. The README gives a one-line status ('largely 'done' project; use Plotly.NET for complete charting) plus links to NuGet badges, the Binder try-in button, Gitpod quickstart, and a brief plotly/google-charts namespace list with a license/3D surface example. A dedicated architecture/design doc is present but only outlines sections (Try XPlot in your browser; Contributing; Gitpod quickstart; Local development) rather than explaining how to use the API or what features are supported beyond the examples, leaving the reader guessing about the package's capabilities.
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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
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).
High IaC: DS-0002 · ×4Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Medium IaC: DS-0001 · ×2Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Low IaC: DS-0002.devcontainer/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
What to do
Resolve the 4 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
45 of 45 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs.
Largest orphaned file · ×3src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs
Dormant codebase
What to do
Resolve the 3 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Configuration.fs, Main.fs, Deedle.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase 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.
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; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.
AC1 · Text alternatives1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. — _template.html:37
What to do
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC2 · Forms & labels10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.
Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. — _template.html:2
What to do
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
`#fsdocs-content table.pre pre` sets color: #837b79 on background-color: #fff7ed — 3.9:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. — fsdocs-default.css:353
What to do
Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
No accessibility enforcement found — no automated accessibility check runs over the HTML your app renders. Assert the accessibility invariants over that HTML in the test suite you already have (parse the output and assert, or drive a browser), and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
What to do
Enforce accessibility in the test suite you already have: assert the accessibility invariants over the HTML your app renders — parse the rendered output in an existing test, or drive a real browser from one — and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
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.
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 `NNNN-title.md` documents 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.
No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
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 `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
README claims Plotly.NET but the only plot library is XPlot.Plotly
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README claims Plotly.NET but the only plot library is XPlot.Plotly.
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 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.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
Statically assessed 13 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (24%; ≈26% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 42 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).
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.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 68 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.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set 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
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
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 — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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.
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.
D10 Test Quality — ~5310 lines of test source are present (.fs) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — no packages were read
D14 License Compliance — 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.
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution; this repository's .NET projects are all F# (.fsproj), which the C#/VB workspace does not load, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.fs) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read; classic .NET Framework projects are packages.config by default). No packages could be enumerated, so there was nothing to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored, because an unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — This check did not run: the 'semgrep' scanner was unavailable in this scan environment. That is a gap on our side, not a finding about your code — nothing here needs action from you, and the check is expected to run on the next scan.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
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.
D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB 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 project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (14 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, 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.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, 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.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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
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
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
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
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.
High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile— Image user should not be 'root' A container that starts as root runs your process with root's capabilities inside the namespace, so a compromise of the process starts from there. The step: create an unprivileged account in the image (`RUN adduser --system --no-create-home app`), give it ownership of the paths the process writes at runtime (`COPY --chown=` on those layers, or a `RUN chown -R`), and end the final stage with `USER app` so it is the default at start. Build stages that only compile can stay root; it is the stage that RUNS that needs the account. If the process genuinely requires root — it manages the container runtime, ptraces another process or opens raw devices — say so here rather than making a change that breaks it.
High IaC: DS-0029 Dockerfile— 'apt-get' missing '--no-install-recommends'
High IaC: DS-0017 packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/extras/Dockerfile— 'RUN <package-manager> update' instruction alone The index refresh sits in its own layer, so the builder caches it: a later rebuild reuses the cached index and installs whatever versions it recorded, which is how an image ships packages that were patched upstream months ago. The step: this file installs with `apt-get`, so join them — `RUN apt-get update && apt-get install -y <packages>` — in one instruction, so the refresh and the install are cached and invalidated together. A refresh that genuinely has no install after it in the same image is dead weight and can go.
High IaC: DS-0029 packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/extras/Dockerfile— 'apt-get' missing '--no-install-recommends'
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:294— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:294-299 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1390-1395 — 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/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1365— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1365-1370 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1388-1393 — 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/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:4— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:4-9 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:5-10 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:7— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:7-12 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:17-22 — 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/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:25— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:25-30 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:33-38 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:30— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:30-35 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:30-35 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 116 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:14— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:14-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:18-23 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:16— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:16-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:19-24 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:349— src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:349-354 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:397-402 — 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/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:349` 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/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:417— src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:417-422 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:443-448 — 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/XPlot.Plotly/Main.fs:417` 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 (13 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:53— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:53-65 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:59-71 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Textfont.fs:26— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Textfont.fs:26-38 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:120-133 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, 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 (13 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:117— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:117-129 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:127-139 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 77 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:140— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:140-152 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:154-167 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, 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 (13 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:113— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:113-125 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:136-148 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:112— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:112-122 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:986-996 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:548— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:548-558 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:965-975 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:589— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:589-599 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1567-1577 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:609— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:609-619 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:850-860 — 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.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Projection.fs:14— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Projection.fs:14-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Contours.fs:40-50 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, 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 (9 lines × 2) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:180— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:180-188 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:736-744 — 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/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1018— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1018-1026 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1087-1095 — 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) tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:20— tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:20-28 | tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:45-53 — 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) tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:54— tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:54-62 | tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:88-96 — 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 (16 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lataxis.fs:10— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lataxis.fs:10-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lonaxis.fs:10-25 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:139— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:139-154 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:157-172 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:91— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:91-106 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:87-102 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 110 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:69— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:69-82 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:157-170 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 36 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:133— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:133-146 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:159-172 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:74— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:74-87 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:71-84 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Line.fs:100— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Line.fs:100-104 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:155-159 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:194— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:194-198 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:236-240 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:238— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:238-242 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:180-184 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 83 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
TooManyMethods: Deedle src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:2— TooManyMethods — 42 methods. 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: Chart src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Main.fs:436— TooManyMethods — 35 methods. 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.
Medium IaC: DS-0001 Dockerfile— ':latest' tag used A `:latest` base pins nothing: the stage rebuilds against whatever that tag points at on the day, so the same commit produces different images and a change you did not make arrives without a diff. The step: pin the base to a concrete release and, where the registry offers one, its digest — `FROM alpine:3.21@sha256:…` — then bump it deliberately, which is a review a bot can raise. A build stage that only compiles is worth pinning for the same reason: it decides what ends up in the layers you ship.
Medium IaC: DS-0001 packages/formatting/FSharp.Formatting.CommandTool/extras/Dockerfile— ':latest' tag used A `:latest` base pins nothing: the stage rebuilds against whatever that tag points at on the day, so the same commit produces different images and a change you did not make arrives without a diff. The step: pin the base to a concrete release and, where the registry offers one, its digest — `FROM alpine:3.21@sha256:…` — then bump it deliberately, which is a review a bot can raise. A build stage that only compiles is worth pinning for the same reason: it decides what ends up in the layers you ship.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:69— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:69-84 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:89-104 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:82-97 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:70-85 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:78-93 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:145— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:145-160 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:270-285 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:216-231 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:248-263 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:191-206 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:135— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:135-150 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:185-200 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:132-147 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:168-183 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:171— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:171-186 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:164-179 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:167-182 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:157-172 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:70— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:70-85 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:71-86 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:95-110 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:100— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:100-115 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:90-105 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:98-113 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 83 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:19— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:19-33 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:19-33 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:114— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:114-128 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:150-164 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 109 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/XPlot.D3/Main.fs:69— src/XPlot.D3/Main.fs:69-76 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Main.fs:337-345 — 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/XPlot.D3/Main.fs:69` 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 (8 lines × 2) tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:101— tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:101-108 | tools/BaselineGenerator/Program.fs:236-243 — 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 × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Shape.fs:6— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Shape.fs:6-11 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:15-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:15-20 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 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 3 times.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:34— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:34-39 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:25-30 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:31-36 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 83 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Data.makeDataTable (cyclomatic 17) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Main.fs:63— Data.makeDataTable 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.
dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate — All 3 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness).
Data.makeDataTable (cognitive 32) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Main.fs:63— Data.makeDataTable has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22, match/switch 6, loops 4 (nesting depth added 17). 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.
FileTooLong: XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:0— FileTooLong — 1724 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 17) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:22— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:22-37 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:36-51 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:34-49 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:33-48 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:37-52 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:38-53 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:58-73 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:51-66 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:46-61 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:40-55 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:54-69 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:47-62 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:44-59 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:35-50 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:37-52 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:26-41 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:45-60 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 36 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 6) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:91— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:91-106 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:89-104 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:146-161 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:139-154 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:142-157 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:132-147 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs:6— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Insidetextfont.fs:6-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Outsidetextfont.fs:6-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Titlefont.fs:6-19 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Tickfont.fs:6-19 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/X.fs:18— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/X.fs:18-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Y.fs:18-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Z.fs:18-31 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Aspectratio.fs:10— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Aspectratio.fs:10-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Eye.fs:10-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Center.fs:9-20 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Up.fs:10-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:81-92 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 5 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 5 times. 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 (10 lines × 2) tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:16— tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:16-25 | tools/StaticDataGenerator/Program.fs:34-43 — 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 × 9) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:37— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:37-45 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:73-81 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:146-154 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:169-177 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:226-234 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:283-291 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:369-377 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:405-413 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:441-449 — 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. 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 × 29) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:28— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:28-34 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:108-114 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1085-1091 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1210-1216 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1264-1270 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs:1469-1475 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Margin.fs:6-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:15-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:15-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:15-22 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/X.fs:9-16 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Y.fs:9-16 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Z.fs:9-16 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:53-59 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:54-60 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:47-54 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Textfont.fs:5-11 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Line.fs:14-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:25-31 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:30-36 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:50-56 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:43-49 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:38-44 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:32-38 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:46-52 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:39-45 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:36-42 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:29-35 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:37-43 — there are 29 copies across 24 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 29 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. 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 × 7) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:24— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:24-30 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:60-66 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:133-139 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:270-276 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:356-362 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:392-398 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:428-434 — all 7 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. 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 × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:10— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Angularaxis.fs:10-17 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:11-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lataxis.fs:6-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Lonaxis.fs:6-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Layout.fs:34-40 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 5 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 5 times.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:192— src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:192-198 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:213-219 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:249-255 | src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs:327-333 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 29) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:10— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Annotation.fs:10-15 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorX.fs:9-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorY.fs:9-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/ErrorZ.fs:9-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:32-37 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:33-38 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:39-44 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:13-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Line.fs:10-15 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:13-18 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Area.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergeo.fs:24-29 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Pie.fs:30-35 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Box.fs:9-14 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:8-13 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:8-13 — there are 29 copies across 27 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 29 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 7) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:5— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Radialaxis.fs:5-10 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:6-11 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:16-21 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:23-28 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:23-28 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Legend.fs:5— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Legend.fs:5-10 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Xaxis.fs:21-26 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Yaxis.fs:22-27 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Zaxis.fs:28-33 | src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Colorbar.fs:27-32 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:20— src/XPlot.Plotly/PlotBase/Marker.fs:20-25 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:28-33 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:32-37 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:34-39 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 76 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:166— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:166-170 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter3D.fs:175-179 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Mesh3D.fs:213-217 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:231-235 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:173-177 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Candlestick.fs:110-114 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:218-222 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 6) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:165— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Choropleth.fs:165-169 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:179-183 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:311-315 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:269-273 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:289-293 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:232-236 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 5) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:171— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs:171-175 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs:296-300 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Countor.fs:254-258 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2D.fs:274-278 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Heatmap.fs:217-221 — before extracting anything, compare `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Surface.fs` and `src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram2DContour.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 70 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:184— src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scattergl.fs:184-188 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Histogram.fs:257-261 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Bar.fs:190-194 | src/XPlot.Plotly/Plots/Scatter.fs:241-245 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. No coverage collector was found in your CI either, so there is no existing report to hand us: add a coverage collector to your test run and commit (or publish) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output anywhere in the repo, or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 6 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Largest orphaned file · ×3
Largest orphaned file src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Configuration.fs— One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Largest orphaned file src/XPlot.GoogleCharts/Main.fs— One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Largest orphaned file src/XPlot.GoogleCharts.Deedle/Deedle.fs— One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not included · ×1
Test reliability not included — Test source is present (.fs) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
Low IaC: DS-0002 .devcontainer/Dockerfile— Image user should not be 'root' A container that starts as root runs your process with root's capabilities inside the namespace, so a compromise of the process starts from there. The step: create an unprivileged account in the image (`RUN adduser --system --no-create-home app`), give it ownership of the paths the process writes at runtime (`COPY --chown=` on those layers, or a `RUN chown -R`), and end the final stage with `USER app` so it is the default at start. Build stages that only compile can stay root; it is the stage that RUNS that needs the account. If the process genuinely requires root — it manages the container runtime, ptraces another process or opens raw devices — say so here rather than making a change that breaks it.
Dormant codebase — 45 of 45 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 45 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· Dependency hygiene not measured · ×1
Dependency hygiene not measured — no packages were read — This repository's projects (.fs) are MSBuild/NuGet projects and their `<PackageReference>` dependencies are exactly what this dimension assesses — but `dotnet list package` returned no packages for them, so there was nothing to assess. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED. This is a gap in the analysis run (restore or project-load failed for these projects), not a verdict about this repository.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
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.
dotnet: not applicable — `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read; classic .NET Framework projects are packages.config by default). No packages could be enumerated, so there was nothing to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored, because an unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
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.
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.
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.
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
—
Run 019fd548-2b1a-7950-a2ce-3b7213b1c0c5 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 4 · Warnings: 73 · Recommendations: 6 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 06-08-2026 @ 04:15 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.