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.
fzyzcjy/flutter_rust_bridge is sound in substance but carries real gaps (60%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Domain Modelling (100%) — the domain model is expressive and well-guarded. Code Health (100%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Accessibility (42%) — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost. Security (68%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark,… (Page structure); accessibility in the toolchain your project already uses (A11y enforcement); 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor (Bus Factor).
For scale: Very large (~965,040 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~7.5 person-years (~4–15 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Domain Modelling foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
100% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
98% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
71%
Adequate · gated by D16
Readiness
83%
Strong
Security
68%
Adequate · gated by D29, D36
Domain Modelling
100% ★
Exemplary
Accessibility
42%
Weak · gated by AC3
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Accessibility 42% · 46% weightSecurity 68% · 25% weightMaturity 71% · 14% weightReadiness 83% · 8% weightArchitecture 98% · 4% weightCode Health 100% · 2% weightDomain Modelling 100% · 1% weight
Raise Accessibility 42 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 60 → ~72.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €360,000–€1,800,000
| Cost to rebuild | €360,000–€1,800,000 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.8× (at 60% quality) |
| Size & shape | Very large · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~7.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€1,100,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Accessibility at 42% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
2
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain your project already uses: assert accessibility in your UI test suite with your toolkit's own matcher (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
3
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Very large asset (~7.5 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Accessibility at 42%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Good
At a glance — Domain Modelling
The Good
At a glance — Accessibility
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 50 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 12 | Medium |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 2 | Medium |
Roadmap
First, fix page structure by adding required HTML landmarks and titles, and remove meta-refresh tags. Next, enforce accessibility in your existing UI test suite and gate those tests in CI to prevent regressions. Then, address the single off-boarding risk identified in the bus factor analysis. After that, document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated ADR file within your existing docs directory. Finally, add a 'Testing' section to the root README to explain how to run the test suite.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh. | +15.7 pts | Medium | Page structure |
| Enforce accessibility in the toolchain your project already uses: assert accessibility in your UI test suite with your toolkit's own matcher (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge. | +15.7 pts | Medium | A11y enforcement |
| Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. | +2.9 pts | Low | Bus Factor |
| 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). | +2.9 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +2.6 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Resolve the 1 The integrate third party README has no prerequisites or build… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. | +1.3 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| Resolve the 50 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with ci.yaml (49), dependabot.yml. | +2.3 pts | Medium | Static Analysis (SAST) |
| Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. | +0.8 pts | Low | Supply-chain Provenance & Signing |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| .github/workflows/ci.yaml | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| Cargo.lock | 5.8 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium advisory (unmaintained): RUSTSEC-2025-0056 |
| frb_example/integrate_third_party/rust/Cargo.lock | 6.9 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium advisory (unmaintained): RUSTSEC-2024-0436 |
| .github/dependabot.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: dependabot-missing-cooldown |
| frb_codegen/src/library/commands/dart_build_runner.rs | 7.4 | Mixed | Change Coupling: Change coupling: dart_build_runner.rs ↔ flutter.rs |
| frb_example/dart_build_rs/rust/Cargo.lock | 7.9 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium advisory (unsound): RUSTSEC-2026-0190 |
| frb_example/gallery/rust/Cargo.lock | 7.9 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium vulnerability: RUSTSEC-2026-0204 |
| frb_example/pure_dart/rust/Cargo.lock | 7.9 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| tools/frb_internal/lib/src/makefile_dart/quickstart_smoke.dart | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: makefile_dart/quickstart_smoke.dart |
| tools/frb_internal/lib/src/makefile_dart/generate.dart | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: makefile_dart/generate.dart |
| frb_dart/lib/src/dart_opaque/_io.dart | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: _io.dart ↔ _web.dart |
| frb_macros/src/components/attr_external.rs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: attr_external.rs ↔ converter.rs |
| .devcontainer/Dockerfile | 9.0 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: Low IaC: DS-0002 |
| frb_example/integrate_third_party/README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: The integrate third party README has no prerequisites or build instructions, only a one-line description of scanning crates. |
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 29 of 31 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 0.6 — 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.
What we checked — 31 dimensions across the health lenses
D3D4D13D16D19D21D28D29D31D33D34D35D36D37D38AC3AC6AC7AX9DM2DM4DM5DM6M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6
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, 72 of 82 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- 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.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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.
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
- 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").
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- 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.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic domain model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- 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
Dimensions
D3 · God Classes
2 god class(es) detected.
FileTooLong: makefile_dart/quickstart_smoke.dart tools/frb_internal/lib/src/makefile_dart/quickstart_smoke.dart:0
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
218 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is frb_codegen/src/library/codegen/parser/mir/parser/attribute.rs.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The project's READMEs and architecture docs are clear, complete, and well-structured. The README for flutter_rust_bridge v2 is a strong feature-rich overview with a What's new in V2 section that clips mid-sentence (and the outline confirms all listed sections exist), while each generated package README (frb_utils, frb_macros, frb_hooks) is identical and only documents itself, showing no cross-package interdependencies. The VMware Windows local development environment doc is excellent: it explains the workflow, a concrete config example, and a model section that clips mid-sentence but the outline confirms all listed sections exist. Despite the generated package READMEs being thin, the project's documentation as a whole is clear and complete. The project's README and architecture docs are strong: a dedicated integrate-third-party demo plus six Flutter gallery projects with getting-started links to official Flutter resources; a detailed flutter_package_native_assets README covering the project structure, building-native-code steps, regeneration, and cross-platform invocation lists (Gradle/Android, Xcode/iOS/macOS, CMake/Linux/Windows); and deliberate_bad and dart_minimal examples that are intentionally bad but not removed. The main weakness is an absence of a cohesive 'Getting Started' for the Rust crate integration itself — the integrate-third-party demo is thin on setup steps and prerequisites.
The integrate third party README has no prerequisites or build instructions, only a one-line description of scanning crates.frb_example/integrate_third_party/README.md
What to do
- Resolve the 1 The integrate third party README has no prerequisites or build… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
152 finding(s): 0 critical, 152 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:4
What to do
- Resolve the 50 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with ci.yaml (49), dependabot.yml. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (50 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
3 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 3 low.
Low IaC: DS-0002 .devcontainer/Dockerfile
Do you agree with this assessment?
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: _io.dart↔_web.dart 90%; attr_external.rs↔converter.rs 54%; dart_build_runner.rs↔flutter.rs 50%
Change coupling: _io.dart ↔ _web.dart frb_dart/lib/src/dart_opaque/_io.dart
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
12 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 12 medium, 0 low.
Medium advisory (unmaintained): RUSTSEC-2025-0056 Cargo.lock
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] frb_example/integrate_third_party/rust/Cargo.lock
Medium advisory (unsound): RUSTSEC-2026-0190 Cargo.lock
Medium vulnerability: RUSTSEC-2026-0204frb_example/gallery/rust/Cargo.lock
What to do
- Resolve the 4 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Cargo.lock (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 4 Medium CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Cargo.lock (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 Medium advisory (unsound) finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Cargo.lock (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC3 · Page structure
- The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). (×2) — experiment_call_wasm_from_js.html:1, experiment_call_wasm_from_js.html:1
- A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. (×2) — experiment_call_wasm_from_js.html:1, experiment_call_wasm_from_js.html:1
- No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×2) — experiment_call_wasm_from_js.html:1, experiment_call_wasm_from_js.html:1
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no accessibility linting at author time and no automated accessibility check in tests or CI. Add your UI toolkit's own accessibility assertion to the test suite (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in the pipeline.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the toolchain your project already uses: assert accessibility in your UI test suite with your toolkit's own matcher (Flutter `meetsGuideline`, Espresso `AccessibilityChecks`, XCTest `performAccessibilityAudit`), then gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX9 · CQS / query purity
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM2 · Strongly-typed ids
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic domain model
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM5 · Encapsulated state
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add a README to the 59 of 64 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.8 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- 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.
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).
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Architecture | 98% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 71% | Adequate — gated by D16 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 83% | Strong | Solid. |
| Security | 68% | Adequate — gated by D29, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Accessibility | 42% | Weak — gated by AC3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 72 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No form control/button found in the parsed markup — AC2 not applicable here.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No ARIA usage found in the parsed markup — AC5 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
- 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.
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.dart, .py, .rs) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~44135 lines of test source are present (.dart, .swift, .rs) 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 — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Dart pubspec.yaml, a Cargo manifest and package.json), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .dart, .py, .rs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.dart, .py, .rs) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.dart, .kt, .py, .rs, .swift, .ts, .tsx) 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 — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Dart pubspec.yaml, a Cargo manifest and package.json — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- 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 .dart, .kt, .py, .rs, .swift, .ts, .tsx, 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 included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.dart, .swift, .rs) 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 Aggregate boundaries — not scored — an aggregate and a value object cannot be told apart from source alone here (every struct holding a struct reads alike), and a child COLLECTION (legitimate membership) is indistinguishable from a single embedded aggregate. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — not scored — a domain type leaking across a crate boundary cannot be told apart from source alone from a legitimate shared-kernel crate. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM7 Repository granularity — not scored — detecting 'a repository per CHILD entity' needs the aggregate-root structure, which is not resolvable from source alone here. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, which this analysis does not build from source alone for this language. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- 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 — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
- 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 (lcov — `flutter test --coverage` (or `dart test --coverage=coverage` then `dart run coverage:format_coverage --lcov`)) 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)
Issue — 50 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:4
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:51
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:54
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/ci.yaml:59
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:66
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:153
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:156
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:160
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:165
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:171
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:182
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:199
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:206
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:209
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:213
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:234
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:241
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:244
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:261
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:268
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:271
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:275
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:279
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:327
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:334
Warning — 20 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: _io.dart ↔ _web.dart frb_dart/lib/src/dart_opaque/_io.dart
- Change coupling: attr_external.rs ↔ converter.rs frb_macros/src/components/attr_external.rs
- Change coupling: dart_build_runner.rs ↔ flutter.rs frb_codegen/src/library/commands/dart_build_runner.rs
- Change coupling: dart_build_runner.rs ↔ dart_fix.rs frb_codegen/src/library/commands/dart_build_runner.rs
- Change coupling: dart_build_runner.rs ↔ dart_format.rs frb_codegen/src/library/commands/dart_build_runner.rs
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium advisory (unmaintained): RUSTSEC-2025-0056 Cargo.lock
- Medium advisory (unmaintained): RUSTSEC-2024-0388 Cargo.lock
- Medium advisory (unmaintained): RUSTSEC-2024-0436 Cargo.lock
- Medium advisory (unmaintained): RUSTSEC-2024-0436 frb_example/integrate_third_party/rust/Cargo.lock
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] frb_example/integrate_third_party/rust/Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] frb_example/pure_dart/rust/Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Cargo.lock
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium advisory (unsound): RUSTSEC-2026-0190 Cargo.lock
- Medium advisory (unsound): RUSTSEC-2025-0023 Cargo.lock
- Medium advisory (unsound): RUSTSEC-2026-0190 frb_example/dart_build_rs/rust/Cargo.lock
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: makefile_dart/quickstart_smoke.dart tools/frb_internal/lib/src/makefile_dart/quickstart_smoke.dart:0
- FileTooLong: makefile_dart/generate.dart tools/frb_internal/lib/src/makefile_dart/generate.dart:0
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium vulnerability: RUSTSEC-2026-0204 frb_example/gallery/rust/Cargo.lock
Recommendation — 10 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: DS-0002 .devcontainer/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0029 .devcontainer/Dockerfile
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- complexity unreadable for .dart, .py, .rs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
D16 · Bus Factor
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
D19 · Documentation Quality
- The integrate third party README has no prerequisites or build instructions, only a one-line description of scanning crates. frb_example/integrate_third_party/README.md
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 152 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 3 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 12 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |