gazette/core

Executive summary

gazette/core scores 50 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged. The project hasn't declared a stable release yet, so its lenses are rated against a lower bar than a released product's, while the score itself is worked out as for any repository.

The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Maturity, which scores 36 and is rated Weak. Its Documentation accuracy dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Maturity can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to resolve the 88 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness, and if Maturity rose to 70, the score would rise from 50 to about 61.

24 findings are critical: 12 in IaC & Container Security and 12 in Static Analysis (SAST).

Watchdog couldn't measure 20 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Internal API Consistency and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 27,424 lines, which would take an estimated 0.4 person-years, around €58,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 86 Adequate, capped by Cognitive Complexity Architecture 93 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 36 Weak, capped by Knowledge Freshness, Architecture documentation and Documentation accuracy Production Readiness 54 Adequate, capped by Security & performance tooling and Outbound HTTP resilience Security and Compliance 58 Adequate, capped by Static Analysis (SAST), IaC & Container Security and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Performance 74 Strong

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

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

Maturity 36 · counts for 46%Production Readiness 54 · counts for 25%Security and Compliance 58 · counts for 14%Performance 74 · counts for 8%Code Health 86 · counts for 4%Architecture 93 · counts for 2%

If Maturity rose from 36 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 50 to about 61.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 53%Tests 47%

New since the last survey: 3 findings

These 3 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 8 October 2026.

Cyclomatic Complexity · consumer.completeRecovery (cyclomatic 16) consumer/recovery.go
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED

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

Fixed since the last survey: 4 findings

These 4 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 8 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/shards_prune.go cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/shards_prune.go
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: GO-2025-3955 REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: GO-2026-5841 REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED

Rebuild cost: about €58,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€19,000 to €96,000, for 320 to 1,015 hours of work, about 0.4 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 50. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 27,424 lines of product code

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

Top priorities

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

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

Raises the score by about 11 points · Low effort · ADR Quality

Resolve the 88 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with auth.go (3), REDACTED (3), service.go (3).

Raises the score by about 10 points · Medium effort · Knowledge Freshness

Reconcile the README with reality: docs/reference-api.rst names `broker/protocol.proto`, but no file or folder `broker/protocol.proto` exists; docs/reference-api.rst names `consumer/protocol.proto`, but no file or folder `consumer/protocol.proto` exists; broker/fragment/README.md names `store_s3.go`, but no file or folder `store_s3.go` exists; broker/fragment/README.md names `store_gcs.go`, but no file or folder `store_gcs.go` exists; broker/fragment/README.md names `store_azure.go`, but no file or folder `store_azure.go` exists.

Raises the score by about 9 points · Medium effort · Documentation accuracy

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €58,000 to build again, about 0.4 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Maturity, at 36 (Weak). Maturity is about how well the project explains and looks after itself, which decides whether a new developer, or a new supplier, can take over. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Maturity also moves the score most.

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

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

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 11 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

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

What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost

Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 7.2 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 2% to 5% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 691 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 2,802 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 0.1 to 0.9 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.

How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.

Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history

What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

48 modules, with 99 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 2 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 8 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	3 go.gazette.dev/core/allocator/sparse_push_relabel	4 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/codecs	5 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/protocol	8 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer/shardspace	9 go.gazette.dev/core/keyspace	10 go.gazette.dev/core/task	11 go.gazette.dev/core/allocator	13 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/client	15 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/journalspace	16 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/stores	17 go.gazette.dev/core/server	25 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer/recoverylog	26 go.gazette.dev/core/message	27 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/fragment	28 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer/protocol	30 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer	31 go.gazette.dev/core/mainboilerplate	33 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer/store-rocksdb	34 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer/store-sqlite	36 go.gazette.dev/core/mainboilerplate/runconsumer	38 go.gazette.dev/core/examples/stream-sum
1 examples
2 examples.batch_download
3 go.gazette.dev/core/allocator/sparse_push_relabel
4 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/codecs
5 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/protocol
6 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/stores/common
7 go.gazette.dev/core/cmd/gazctl
8 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer/shardspace
9 go.gazette.dev/core/keyspace
10 go.gazette.dev/core/task
11 go.gazette.dev/core/allocator	7				12	1
12 go.gazette.dev/core/auth			7
13 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/client		2	13										1
14 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/http_gateway			2
15 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/journalspace			1
16 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/stores			2
17 go.gazette.dev/core/server			1			1
18 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/protocol/ext					2		1
19 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/stores/azure										3
20 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/stores/fs										2
21 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/stores/gcs										2
22 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/stores/s3										2
23 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/teststub			2			1					1
24 go.gazette.dev/core/brokertest			4			1	1				1
25 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer/recoverylog			5					6
26 go.gazette.dev/core/message			8					5
27 go.gazette.dev/core/broker/fragment		1	2		2								2
28 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer/protocol			9										3
29 go.gazette.dev/core/broker			8		6	1	7			2	1		2	7
30 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer			17		5	1	8	14			1	3	8		4
31 go.gazette.dev/core/mainboilerplate			4								1				1
32 go.gazette.dev/core/cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd			4	1				5	1				2		1		2
33 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer/store-rocksdb			1					2				2				2
34 go.gazette.dev/core/consumer/store-sqlite								2				2				2
35 go.gazette.dev/core/consumertest			1			1					1				1	2
36 go.gazette.dev/core/mainboilerplate/runconsumer						1					1					2	2
37 go.gazette.dev/core/examples/bike-share			1									1	7		1	4				4
38 go.gazette.dev/core/examples/stream-sum			3					1				1	7			3	3	1	1	3
39 go.gazette.dev/core/examples/word-count												1	4		1	4				3
40 go.gazette.dev/core/examples/stream-sum/chunker																					1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 86% · Adequate · gated by D2 ·

The Good

D3 · Go God Classes 9.0 D4 · Go Code Duplication 9.6 D17 · Go Explicit Debt 9.9 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 8.5 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0

The Bad

D1 · Go Cyclomatic Complexity 6.2

The Ugly

D2 · Go Cognitive Complexity 3.2

At a glance — Architecture · 93% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good

D5 · Go Coupling 10.0 D6 · Go Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.8 D35 · Go Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.9 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Ugly

D26 · Go Project Cohesion 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 36% · Weak · gated by D34, M2, M4 ·

The Good

D15 · Go Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Go Bus Factor 9.1 D19 · Go Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · Go Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0

The Bad

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.0

The Ugly

D20 · Go ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · Go Knowledge Freshness 2.1 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 54% · Adequate · gated by P3, P7 ·

The Good

D9 · Go Test Distribution 9.8 D11 · Go Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · Go Dependency Hygiene 7.1 D13 · Go Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Go License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 9.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 1.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 58% · Adequate · gated by D29, D31, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Go Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Go Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.4 D43 · Go Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Go Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0

The Bad

D40 · Go Network Egress Confinement 6.0 D41 · Go Kernel & Syscall Confinement 6.0

The Ugly

D29 · Go Static Analysis (SAST) 0.6 D31 · Go IaC & Container Security 0.0 D36 · Go Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Performance · 74% · Strong ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 8.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.9

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration	311	High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection	64	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	9	Medium

Roadmap

First, address the missing Architectural Decision Records by documenting key design choices and resolving the single quality finding. Next, update the codebase by removing 88 orphaned files, prioritizing auth.go, REDACTED, and service.go, while simultaneously correcting five documentation inaccuracies in the README and API references. Finally, strengthen security by integrating a static analysis tool into the CI pipeline to automatically block regressions.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+10.8 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Resolve the 88 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with auth.go (3), REDACTED (3), service.go (3).	+9.7 pts	Medium	Knowledge Freshness
Reconcile the README with reality: docs/reference-api.rst names `broker/protocol.proto`, but no file or folder `broker/protocol.proto` exists; docs/reference-api.rst names `consumer/protocol.proto`, but no file or folder `consumer/protocol.proto` exists; broker/fragment/README.md names `store_s3.go`, but no file or folder `store_s3.go` exists; broker/fragment/README.md names `store_gcs.go`, but no file or folder `store_gcs.go` exists; broker/fragment/README.md names `store_azure.go`, but no file or folder `store_azure.go` exists.	+9.3 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+7.3 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 2 Deprecated module finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+2.5 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+1.5 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+2.8 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+2.8 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 100 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 11% slop · 14% mixed · 75% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.0	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.0	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Critical IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.0	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.6	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
broker/resolver.go	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
keyspace/key_space.go	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
consumer/recovery.go	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 24

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 420

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 232

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

Could not be resolved — 21

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 58 of 62 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 62 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D20D21D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D40D41D43D44AX10AX2AX3AX5AX9M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6P7PF1PF2X1X12X13X14X15X19X2X21X22X23X25X26X27X28X3X30

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, 636 of 676 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a1625c-3f26-76a8-b141-bd5a924818e9.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.go) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its Go module dependencies. Nothing was read about its Python dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (REDACTED), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Kustomize/bases/example-stream-sum/set-summer-name-label.yaml:3 did not read as a pod spec (a templated manifest such as Helm's that is not YAML until rendered, or a workload whose pod spec this check does not locate), so the seccomp/AppArmor profile in force there was not judged and no row about them can appear on this card.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (REDACTED). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Go, Python, c, cpp is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Go, Python, c, cpp is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's C, Cpp, Python is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D40 Network Egress Confinement: Egress confinement is read from committed Kubernetes manifests — a policy applied out-of-band (cluster-default deny, a service mesh, or a cloud firewall/security group off-repo) is invisible, and a present NetworkPolicy is declared config, not proof the cluster admission-controller actually enforces it at runtime.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement: Syscall/MAC confinement is read from committed manifests — a profile applied by a cluster-wide PodSecurity default or a mutating webhook off-repo isn't seen, and a declared seccomp/AppArmor profile is config presence, not proof the node's kernel actually loaded and enforced it.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (REDACTED, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
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.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

32 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was recoverylog.playLog at 49.

recoverylog.playLog (cyclomatic 49)consumer/recoverylog/playback.go:228

appendFSM.onValidatePreconditions (cyclomatic 37)REDACTED:411

Resolver.Resolve (cyclomatic 36)consumer/resolver.go:101

Reader.Read (cyclomatic 35)REDACTED:64

MaxFlow.discharge (cyclomatic 32)allocator/sparse_push_relabel/push_relabel.go:189

+ 27 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 6 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with recoverylog.playLog (cyclomatic 49), appendFSM.onValidatePreconditions (cyclomatic 37), Resolver.Resolve (cyclomatic 36). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 6 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 6.2 to about 7.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 30; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity3.2 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

57 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was recoverylog.playLog at 88.

recoverylog.playLog (cognitive 88)consumer/recoverylog/playback.go:228

MaxFlow.discharge (cognitive 66)allocator/sparse_push_relabel/push_relabel.go:189

Resolver.Resolve (cognitive 63)consumer/resolver.go:101

Reader.Read (cognitive 51)REDACTED:64

resolver.resolve (cognitive 40)broker/resolver.go:89

+ 52 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 3 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with recoverylog.playLog (cognitive 88), MaxFlow.discharge (cognitive 66), Resolver.Resolve (cognitive 63). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 3 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 3.2 to about 4.3/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 god class(es) detected.

MethodTooLong: cmdServe.Execute · ×4cmd/gazette/main.go:62

FunctionTooLong: recoverylog.playLogconsumer/recoverylog/playback.go:228

ClassTooLong: appendFSMREDACTED:22

What to do

Resolve the 4 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with main.go, shards_prune.go, sequencer.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with playback.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.6 / 10Stronggated by 28 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

25 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×4broker/protocol/endpoint.go:22

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3broker/list_apply_api.go:225

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2broker/fragment_store_health_api.go:16

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×2broker/protocol/auth.go:100

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×2broker/protocol/label_extensions.go:179

+ 13 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with endpoint.go, resolver.go, journal_spec_extensions.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with list_apply_api.go (2), appender.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with fragment_store_health_api.go, common.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

2 production modules (Go+CMake), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 1 of the 2 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

1 of 73 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: Counter (LCOM4 4)examples/word-count/word_count.go:40

What to do

Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with word_count.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

511 test methods: 491 unit, 12 integration, 0 BDD, 8 e2e. The Go suite contributes 511 test case(s) across 92 `_test.go` file(s) declaring at least one — every `func Test…(t *testing.T)` that `go test` would collect, plus the suite methods a testify-style runner reaches; a table-driven case list counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is INFERRED from file names, paths and build constraints, not declared: 1 of those file(s) use Go's external test package (`package x_test`), which is a visibility boundary rather than a pyramid tier and was not read as one.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Go (go.gazette.dev/core): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~7.6~~ 7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 93% · ceiling Verified

23 outdated, 2 author-deprecated direct Go module(s), 1 pinning or checksum defect(s). 46 of 46 direct requirement(s) were graded against proxy.golang.org (0 not served there, 3 publishing no tagged release to be behind). Whether any of these modules is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — proxy.golang.org publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, not a registry one. Known CVEs in this module graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED and go.sum there.

Deprecated module: github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go · ×2

Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: gopkg.in/check.v1

Outdated: cloud.google.com/go/storage · ×23

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

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

0 of 159 required Go module(s) use a banned license. Licences were read per module version from the licence files pkg.go.dev detects (via api.deps.dev), over every module this repository's REDACTED requires, direct and indirect, at the version the build uses. Go records no test-only scope at module level, so modules only this repository's own tests import are included. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's Go module dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

9 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is REDACTED. Counted over 105 of the 156 production source files in this repository: 41 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 10 have no attributable history left to measure.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×2

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Stronggated by 16 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

16 deducted task-comment markers across 27424 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.9. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×16broker/service.go:81

What to do

Resolve the 16 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with persister.go (2), recovery.go (2), service.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is excellent at conveying the project purpose and a strong overview of Gazette as a streaming data journal abstraction that mixes SQL, batch, and millisecond-latency paradigms. It also links to Godoc for the core package, CI status badges, and an internal roadmap (where to start). The allocator/README, broker/README, kustomize/README, and broker/client/README each document their own directories with focused architecture, essential types, usage examples, and a clipped but complete outline. All four directory READMEs are strong. This repository is well documented: a README below the root (with no overview of what Gazette does) and architecture/design docs cover each other's scope. The design goals document explains exactly-once semantics, journals vs blobs, immutability, and operational considerations such as cloud costs and storage pruning; it also describes how brokers work under the hood (Etcd source of truth, WaitForRevision, shards). A dedicated consumers/consumers-concepts doc covers consumer Application interfaces, shards, and stores. The changelog points to a separate CHANGELOG.rst file. All four architecture-design docs are present and well written. The README examples are excellent at describing the project's purpose and showing how each example is deployed to Kubernetes with kubectl commands. The architecture/Docs markdown files (42) provide comprehensive design documentation that would have been referenced by any README in this set. All four READMEs show a strong overview plus deployment, while the index file points readers to the examples via an internal table of contents.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 of 2 build units (Go, Python) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)0.6 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

72 finding(s): 0 critical, 12 high, 25 medium, 35 low. 6 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `REDACTED` (line 18), `examples/generate-zonemap-gke.sh` (line 28) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

+ 9 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 6 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.4 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 3 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

311 finding(s): 1 critical, 11 high, 243 medium, 56 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 243 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (69), REDACTED (49), REDACTED (25). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (243 warning-level).
Resolve the 11 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Critical IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness2.1 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

91 of 115 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is consumer/recoverylog/playback.go. Counted over 115 of the 156 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×88consumer/interfaces.go:1

Most significant orphaned file · ×3consumer/recoverylog/playback.go:1

Concentrated knowledge decay

What to do

Resolve the 88 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with auth.go (3), REDACTED (3), service.go (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (88 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with playback.go, sequencer.go, transaction.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Concentrated knowledge decay finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

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

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D40 · Network Egress Confinement6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Kubernetes workloads restrict network EGRESS with a NetworkPolicy (or Cilium policy), limiting where a compromised pod can send data or reach a command-and-control server. Presence of committed egress-restricting policy, not runtime enforcement.

Method: Deterministic YAML-manifest inspection (no external tool, no Roslyn — language-agnostic): Kubernetes workloads gate applicability; credits a NetworkPolicy / Cilium policy that restricts egress (policyTypes: [Egress] / egress rules). Reward-leaning (neutral floor climbing to 10, never a deduction — baseline misconfigs stay with D31). Deterministic.

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

0/2 network-egress controls present (network policy, egress restriction).

No network policy

What to do

Resolve the 1 No network policy finding(s) in Network Egress Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d40_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Kubernetes workloads confine the kernel boundary — a seccomp profile (RuntimeDefault/Localhost) plus an AppArmor/SELinux mandatory-access-control layer — shrinking the syscall attack surface a container escape would use. Presence of committed confinement config, not runtime enforcement.

Method: Deterministic YAML-manifest inspection (no external tool, no Roslyn): on Kubernetes workloads, credits a seccomp profile (RuntimeDefault/Localhost) and an AppArmor/SELinux MAC layer. Reward-leaning (neutral floor climbing to 10); NotApplicable without workloads. Deterministic.

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

0/14 workload(s) run every container under a seccomp profile; 0/14 declare an AppArmor/SELinux profile.

No seccomp profile · ×14REDACTED:2

What to do

Resolve the 14 No seccomp profile finding(s) in Kernel & Syscall Confinement — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d41_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy0.0 / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

docs/reference-api.rst names `broker/protocol.proto`, but no file or folder `broker/protocol.proto` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-api.rst:21
docs/reference-api.rst names `consumer/protocol.proto`, but no file or folder `consumer/protocol.proto` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-api.rst:28
broker/fragment/README.md names `store_s3.go`, but no file or folder `store_s3.go` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — broker/fragment/README.md:27
broker/fragment/README.md names `store_gcs.go`, but no file or folder `store_gcs.go` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — broker/fragment/README.md:28
broker/fragment/README.md names `store_azure.go`, but no file or folder `store_azure.go` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — broker/fragment/README.md:29

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: docs/reference-api.rst names `broker/protocol.proto`, but no file or folder `broker/protocol.proto` exists; docs/reference-api.rst names `consumer/protocol.proto`, but no file or folder `consumer/protocol.proto` exists; broker/fragment/README.md names `store_s3.go`, but no file or folder `store_s3.go` exists; broker/fragment/README.md names `store_gcs.go`, but no file or folder `store_gcs.go` exists; broker/fragment/README.md names `store_azure.go`, but no file or folder `store_azure.go` exists.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

Add a health-check endpoint (a /healthz handler) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1557 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

`http.Client{` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. (×3) — REDACTED:382, REDACTED:416, broker/stores/s3/store.go:82

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 50 use(s) across 28,422 production line(s) (~1.8/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Go: on hot paths, reuse buffers and objects through sync.Pool, preallocate slices and maps with make([]T, 0, n) / make(map[K]V, n), size builders with Grow, append with strconv.Append*, and reslice with buf[:0] instead of allocating anew.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 3/4 functions that make a cancellable request (net/http, net.Dial) accept a context.Context or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a cancelled request, a shutdown, an expired deadline. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it (`http.NewRequestWithContext`, `DialContext`); where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
`New` calls `grpc.DialContext(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`. — REDACTED:54

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Code Health — Whether a `for` loop leaves the `dict`, `set` or `deque` it is walking alone — CPython's iterators over those check that the collection has not changed size since the loop began, so a body that removes from (or empties) the very collection the loop is walking makes the next step raise `RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration` and the remaining items are never seen.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	86%	Adequate — gated by D2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	93%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	36%	Weak — gated by D34, M2, M4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	54%	Adequate — gated by P3, P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	58%	Adequate — gated by D29, D31, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	74%	Strong	Strongest area.

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

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

X10 Duplicated predicate — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

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

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

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

Not included — 53 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Go imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's Python imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~24048 lines of test source are present (.go) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
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.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.go), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 signals for this style, 2 needed — the count is met but a required primary signal is absent): 3 strongly-typed id(s); 2 value object(s)
ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 1 integration event(s); 1 CQRS handler(s)
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events))
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: Go has no async/await function colour, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
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.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — 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
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — 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
X18 Disposal-pattern 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
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — 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
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 24 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×11

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Critical IaC · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 420 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×243

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 218 more in this group — see findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×16

TodoComment broker/service.go:81 — // TODO(johnny): hack to support persister stop. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment broker/resolver.go:244 — // TODO(johnny): This SHOULD not happen, but sometimes does. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment broker/replica_test.go:46 — // TODO(johnny): verify the persisted spool as well. Requires hooks into persister. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment REDACTED:279 — // TODO: Remove DeprecatedJournal, which is sent for compatibility with last release. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment broker/fragment/persister.go:41 — // TODO(johnny): Turn this into a panic() assertion, as it's an invariant — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment broker/fragment/persister.go:103 — // TODO(johnny): Remove; it's a contract invariant (except for unit tests). — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment broker/protocol/rpc_extensions_test.go:213 — // TODO(johnny): Re-enable when Registers are required, post v0.83. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment broker/protocol/rpc_extensions.go:214 — // TODO(johnny): Migration stub for v0.82 => v0.83. Remove with >= v0.84. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment REDACTED:158 — // TODO(johnny): Switch to ".gzod" when v2 broker fully released. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment consumer/store_json_file.go:64 — // TODO(johnny): Remove with next release. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment consumer/shard_api_test.go:53 — // TODO(johnny): Proxy case ought to be unit-tested here. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment consumer/recovery.go:105 — // TODO(johnny): Switch over to hints.Marshal() when proto decode support is deployed. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment consumer/recovery.go:154 — // TODO(johnny): Switch over to hints.Marshal() when proto decode support is deployed. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment consumer/store-rocksdb/store_rocksdb.go:112 — // TODO(johnny): Remove after migration to consumer checkpoints. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment keyspace/key_space.go:142 — // TODO(johnny): this lock guards a current race in scenarios_test.go. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment message/fixed_framing.go:39 — // TODO(johnny): Can we remove newline handling? Helped with Hadoop streaming IIRC. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×4

MethodTooLong: cmdServe.Execute cmd/gazette/main.go:62 — MethodTooLong — Execute runs 117 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 17 over it, 1.17× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: cmdShardsPrune.Execute cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/shards_prune.go:46 — MethodTooLong — Execute runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Sequencer.QueueUncommitted message/sequencer.go:158 — MethodTooLong — QueueUncommitted runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Resolver.Resolve consumer/resolver.go:101 — MethodTooLong — Resolve runs 107 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 7 over it, 1.07× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) broker/protocol/endpoint.go:22 — broker/protocol/endpoint.go:22-28 | broker/protocol/fragment_store.go:34-40 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) broker/resolver.go:340 — broker/resolver.go:340-346 | consumer/resolver.go:409-415 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) broker/protocol/journal_spec_extensions.go:85 — broker/protocol/journal_spec_extensions.go:85-91 | keyspace/key_values.go:57-64 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) broker/client/append_service_win.go:31 — broker/client/append_service_win.go:31-37 | broker/fragment/spool_win.go:26-32 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) broker/list_apply_api.go:225 — broker/list_apply_api.go:225-233 | consumer/shard_api.go:113-121 — 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 `broker/list_apply_api.go:225` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) broker/list_apply_api.go:266 — broker/list_apply_api.go:266-274 | consumer/shard_api.go:161-169 — 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 `broker/list_apply_api.go:266` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) broker/client/appender.go:41 — broker/client/appender.go:41-49 | REDACTED:53-61 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED:382 — `http.Client{` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED:416 — `http.Client{` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience broker/stores/s3/store.go:82 — `http.Client{` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated module · ×2

Deprecated module: github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go — `github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go` is required at v1.55.8 in REDACTED, and its author has DEPRECATED the module: "aws-sdk-go is deprecated. Use aws-sdk-go-v2. See https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/developer/announcing-end-of-support-for-aws-sdk-for-go-v1-on-july-31-2025/." A deprecation is declared by the author in the module's own REDACTED and applies to the whole module, not to one release, so moving to a newer version of it does not clear this. Follow the replacement the notice names.
Deprecated module: github.com/golang/protobuf — `github.com/golang/protobuf` is required at v1.5.4 in REDACTED, and its author has DEPRECATED the module: "Use the "google.golang.org/protobuf" module instead." A deprecation is declared by the author in the module's own REDACTED and applies to the whole module, not to one release, so moving to a newer version of it does not clear this. Follow the replacement the notice names.

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) broker/fragment_store_health_api.go:16 — broker/fragment_store_health_api.go:16-69 | broker/fragments_api.go:17-66 | broker/list_apply_api.go:204-274 | broker/replicate_api.go:15-82 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) broker/stores/azure/common.go:153 — broker/stores/azure/common.go:153-163 | broker/stores/fs/store.go:139-149 | REDACTED:182-192 | broker/stores/s3/store.go:242-252 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) broker/protocol/auth.go:100 — broker/protocol/auth.go:100-112 | broker/protocol/auth.go:144-156 — 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 `broker/protocol/auth.go:100` 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/journals_reset_head.go:61 — cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/journals_reset_head.go:61-73 | cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/journals_suspend.go:37-49 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) broker/protocol/label_extensions.go:179 — broker/protocol/label_extensions.go:179-187 | broker/protocol/label_extensions.go:200-208 | broker/protocol/label_extensions.go:219-227 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `broker/protocol/label_extensions.go:179` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) consumer/shard_api.go:280 — consumer/shard_api.go:280-288 | consumer/shard_api.go:294-302 | consumer/shard_api.go:395-403 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `consumer/shard_api.go:280` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) allocator/alloc_state.go:148 — allocator/alloc_state.go:148-153 | allocator/allocator.go:156-161 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) broker/stores/azure/account.go:79 — broker/stores/azure/account.go:79-84 | broker/stores/azure/ad.go:135-140 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `broker/stores/azure/account.go:79` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) broker/client/list.go:228 — broker/client/list.go:228-232 | consumer/shard_api.go:377-381 — 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 `broker/client/list.go:228` 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) broker/key_space.go:45 — broker/key_space.go:45-49 | consumer/key_space.go:46-50 — 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 `broker/key_space.go:45` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · recoverylog.playLog (cyclomatic 49) · ×1

recoverylog.playLog (cyclomatic 49) consumer/recoverylog/playback.go:228 — recoverylog.playLog has cyclomatic complexity 49 (threshold 15). Of this number, 45 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · appendFSM.onValidatePreconditions (cyclomatic 37) · ×1

appendFSM.onValidatePreconditions (cyclomatic 37) REDACTED:411 — appendFSM.onValidatePreconditions has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Resolver.Resolve (cyclomatic 36) · ×1

Resolver.Resolve (cyclomatic 36) consumer/resolver.go:101 — Resolver.Resolve has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). Of this number, 35 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Reader.Read (cyclomatic 35) · ×1

Reader.Read (cyclomatic 35) REDACTED:64 — Reader.Read has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MaxFlow.discharge (cyclomatic 32) · ×1

MaxFlow.discharge (cyclomatic 32) allocator/sparse_push_relabel/push_relabel.go:189 — MaxFlow.discharge has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). Of this number, 31 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · recoverylog.reduceSegment (cyclomatic 32) · ×1

recoverylog.reduceSegment (cyclomatic 32) consumer/recoverylog/segment.go:116 — recoverylog.reduceSegment has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · appendFSM.onStreamContent (cyclomatic 30) · ×1

appendFSM.onStreamContent (cyclomatic 30) REDACTED:630 — appendFSM.onStreamContent has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · resolver.resolve (cyclomatic 28) · ×1

resolver.resolve (cyclomatic 28) broker/resolver.go:89 — resolver.resolve has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · broker.serveRead (cyclomatic 24) · ×1

broker.serveRead (cyclomatic 24) broker/read_api.go:112 — broker.serveRead has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Sequencer.QueueUncommitted (cyclomatic 24) · ×1

Sequencer.QueueUncommitted (cyclomatic 24) message/sequencer.go:158 — Sequencer.QueueUncommitted has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · client.serveAppends (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

client.serveAppends (cyclomatic 22) broker/client/append_service.go:345 — client.serveAppends has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RetryReader.Read (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

RetryReader.Read (cyclomatic 20) broker/client/retry_reader.go:64 — RetryReader.Read has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · cmdJournalAppend.Execute (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

cmdJournalAppend.Execute (cyclomatic 20) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/journals_append.go:88 — cmdJournalAppend.Execute has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · KeySpace.Watch (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

KeySpace.Watch (cyclomatic 20) keyspace/key_space.go:131 — KeySpace.Watch has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Index.Query (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

Index.Query (cyclomatic 18) broker/fragment/index.go:41 — Index.Query has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Spool.applyCommit (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

Spool.applyCommit (cyclomatic 18) REDACTED:111 — Spool.applyCommit has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · cmdShardsPrune.Execute (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

cmdShardsPrune.Execute (cyclomatic 18) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/shards_prune.go:46 — cmdShardsPrune.Execute has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · State.observe (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

State.observe (cyclomatic 17) allocator/alloc_state.go:85 — State.observe has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · fragment.Persist (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

fragment.Persist (cyclomatic 17) broker/fragment/stores.go:38 — fragment.Persist has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · FSM.Apply (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

FSM.Apply (cyclomatic 17) consumer/recoverylog/fsm.go:173 — FSM.Apply has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Sequencer.Step (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

Sequencer.Step (cyclomatic 17) message/sequencer.go:344 — Sequencer.Step has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · broker.pulseDaemon (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

broker.pulseDaemon (cyclomatic 16) broker/replica.go:108 — broker.pulseDaemon has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CoverSet.Add (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

CoverSet.Add (cyclomatic 16) broker/fragment/cover_set.go:36 — CoverSet.Add has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · protocol.matchSelector (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

protocol.matchSelector (cyclomatic 16) broker/protocol/label_extensions.go:318 — protocol.matchSelector has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

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

Service.List (cyclomatic 16) broker/list_apply_api.go:21 — Service.List has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · stores.runCheck (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

stores.runCheck (cyclomatic 16) REDACTED:107 — stores.runCheck has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · cmdJournalsList.outputTable (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

cmdJournalsList.outputTable (cyclomatic 16) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/journals_list.go:92 — cmdJournalsList.outputTable has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · cmdShardsList.outputTable (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

cmdShardsList.outputTable (cyclomatic 16) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/shards_list.go:69 — cmdShardsList.outputTable has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · consumer.completeRecovery (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

consumer.completeRecovery (cyclomatic 16) consumer/recovery.go:242 — consumer.completeRecovery has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · consumer.txnStep (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

consumer.txnStep (cyclomatic 16) consumer/transaction.go:170 — consumer.txnStep has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · recoverylog.makeLive (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

recoverylog.makeLive (cyclomatic 16) consumer/recoverylog/playback.go:701 — recoverylog.makeLive has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · server.New (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

server.New (cyclomatic 16) REDACTED:54 — server.New has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit · ×1

Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: gopkg.in/check.v1 — Direct dependency `gopkg.in/check.v1` is required at `v1.0.0-20201130134442-10cb98267c6c` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2020-11-30, 5.9 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `gopkg.in/check.v1` and has not moved this requirement in 5.9 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `gopkg.in/check.v1` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · recoverylog.playLog (cognitive 88) · ×1

recoverylog.playLog (cognitive 88) consumer/recoverylog/playback.go:228 — recoverylog.playLog has cognitive complexity 88 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 33 (70 pts), match/switch 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 4 (nesting depth added 43). Of this number, 84 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MaxFlow.discharge (cognitive 66) · ×1

MaxFlow.discharge (cognitive 66) allocator/sparse_push_relabel/push_relabel.go:189 — MaxFlow.discharge has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (52 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), jumps 4, boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 29). Of this number, 65 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Resolver.Resolve (cognitive 63) · ×1

Resolver.Resolve (cognitive 63) consumer/resolver.go:101 — Resolver.Resolve has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (45 pts), loops 3 (8 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 29). Of this number, 62 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Reader.Read (cognitive 51) · ×1

Reader.Read (cognitive 51) REDACTED:64 — Reader.Read has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 27 (47 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · resolver.resolve (cognitive 40) · ×1

resolver.resolve (cognitive 40) broker/resolver.go:89 — resolver.resolve has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (33 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · cmdShardsPrune.Execute (cognitive 40) · ×1

cmdShardsPrune.Execute (cognitive 40) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/shards_prune.go:46 — cmdShardsPrune.Execute has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (33 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 22). Of this number, 30 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · appendFSM.onValidatePreconditions (cognitive 39) · ×1

appendFSM.onValidatePreconditions (cognitive 39) REDACTED:411 — appendFSM.onValidatePreconditions has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (26 pts), boolean chains 9, match/switch 2 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · broker.serveRead (cognitive 38) · ×1

broker.serveRead (cognitive 38) broker/read_api.go:112 — broker.serveRead has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (30 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · KeySpace.Watch (cognitive 35) · ×1

KeySpace.Watch (cognitive 35) keyspace/key_space.go:131 — KeySpace.Watch has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (22 pts), match/switch 3 (10 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · appendFSM.onStreamContent (cognitive 34) · ×1

appendFSM.onStreamContent (cognitive 34) REDACTED:630 — appendFSM.onStreamContent has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (24 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · client.serveAppends (cognitive 31) · ×1

client.serveAppends (cognitive 31) broker/client/append_service.go:345 — client.serveAppends has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (25 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · cmdJournalsList.outputTable (cognitive 31) · ×1

cmdJournalsList.outputTable (cognitive 31) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/journals_list.go:92 — cmdJournalsList.outputTable has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (26 pts), loops 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · State.observe (cognitive 29) · ×1

State.observe (cognitive 29) allocator/alloc_state.go:85 — State.observe has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (22 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · allocator.Allocate (cognitive 29) · ×1

allocator.Allocate (cognitive 29) allocator/allocator.go:39 — allocator.Allocate has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (28 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · cmdShardsList.outputTable (cognitive 29) · ×1

cmdShardsList.outputTable (cognitive 29) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/shards_list.go:69 — cmdShardsList.outputTable has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (23 pts), loops 4 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Spool.compressThrough (cognitive 28) · ×1

Spool.compressThrough (cognitive 28) REDACTED:240 — Spool.compressThrough has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (27 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · pipeline.gatherSync (cognitive 27) · ×1

pipeline.gatherSync (cognitive 27) broker/pipeline.go:157 — pipeline.gatherSync has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · editor.EditRetryLoop (cognitive 27) · ×1

editor.EditRetryLoop (cognitive 27) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/editor/editor.go:45 — editor.EditRetryLoop has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (25 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · resolver.updateResolutions (cognitive 26) · ×1

resolver.updateResolutions (cognitive 26) broker/resolver.go:228 — resolver.updateResolutions has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · cmdShardsUnassign.Execute (cognitive 26) · ×1

cmdShardsUnassign.Execute (cognitive 26) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/shards_unassign.go:31 — cmdShardsUnassign.Execute has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), loops 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · KeySpace.Load (cognitive 26) · ×1

KeySpace.Load (cognitive 26) keyspace/key_space.go:78 — KeySpace.Load has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (18 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Sequencer.QueueUncommitted (cognitive 26) · ×1

Sequencer.QueueUncommitted (cognitive 26) message/sequencer.go:158 — Sequencer.QueueUncommitted has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (24 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · fragment.Persist (cognitive 25) · ×1

fragment.Persist (cognitive 25) broker/fragment/stores.go:38 — fragment.Persist has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (22 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Service.List (cognitive 25) · ×1

Service.List (cognitive 25) broker/list_apply_api.go:21 — Service.List has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), loops 4 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 10). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · consumer.ShardApply (cognitive 23) · ×1

consumer.ShardApply (cognitive 23) consumer/shard_api.go:104 — consumer.ShardApply has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (22 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RetryReader.Read (cognitive 22) · ×1

RetryReader.Read (cognitive 22) broker/client/retry_reader.go:64 — RetryReader.Read has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Spool.applyCommit (cognitive 22) · ×1

Spool.applyCommit (cognitive 22) REDACTED:111 — Spool.applyCommit has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Sequencer.Step (cognitive 22) · ×1

Sequencer.Step (cognitive 22) message/sequencer.go:344 — Sequencer.Step has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Index.Query (cognitive 21) · ×1

Index.Query (cognitive 21) broker/fragment/index.go:41 — Index.Query has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · cmdJournalAppend.Execute (cognitive 21) · ×1

cmdJournalAppend.Execute (cognitive 21) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/journals_append.go:88 — cmdJournalAppend.Execute has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · consumer.completeRecovery (cognitive 21) · ×1

consumer.completeRecovery (cognitive 21) consumer/recovery.go:242 — consumer.completeRecovery has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · recoverylog.makeLive (cognitive 21) · ×1

recoverylog.makeLive (cognitive 21) consumer/recoverylog/playback.go:701 — recoverylog.makeLive has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (17 pts), loops 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · server.New (cognitive 21) · ×1

server.New (cognitive 21) REDACTED:54 — server.New has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (20 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 3). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · consumer.fetchHints (cognitive 20) · ×1

consumer.fetchHints (cognitive 20) consumer/recovery.go:33 — consumer.fetchHints has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (18 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · consumer.ShardUnassign (cognitive 20) · ×1

consumer.ShardUnassign (cognitive 20) consumer/shard_api.go:214 — consumer.ShardUnassign has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · recoverylog.reduceSegment (cognitive 20) · ×1

recoverylog.reduceSegment (cognitive 20) consumer/recoverylog/segment.go:116 — recoverylog.reduceSegment has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 12, if/else 4 (7 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · broker.pulseDaemon (cognitive 19) · ×1

broker.pulseDaemon (cognitive 19) broker/replica.go:108 — broker.pulseDaemon has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · client.ReadListResponse (cognitive 19) · ×1

client.ReadListResponse (cognitive 19) broker/client/list.go:148 — client.ReadListResponse has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WatchedList.watch (cognitive 19) · ×1

WatchedList.watch (cognitive 19) broker/client/list.go:77 — WatchedList.watch has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CoverSet.Add (cognitive 19) · ×1

CoverSet.Add (cognitive 19) broker/fragment/cover_set.go:36 — CoverSet.Add has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · protocol.matchSelector (cognitive 19) · ×1

protocol.matchSelector (cognitive 19) broker/protocol/label_extensions.go:318 — protocol.matchSelector has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (10 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

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

Service.Apply (cognitive 19) broker/list_apply_api.go:204 — Service.Apply has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · keyspace.updateKeyValuesTail (cognitive 19) · ×1

keyspace.updateKeyValuesTail (cognitive 19) keyspace/key_values.go:103 — keyspace.updateKeyValuesTail has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (19 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · client.Append (cognitive 18) · ×1

client.Append (cognitive 18) broker/client/appender.go:186 — client.Append has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · cmdAttachUUIDs.Execute (cognitive 18) · ×1

cmdAttachUUIDs.Execute (cognitive 18) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/attach_uuids.go:68 — cmdAttachUUIDs.Execute has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), loops 4 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 7). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · consumer.servePrimary (cognitive 18) · ×1

consumer.servePrimary (cognitive 18) consumer/shard.go:218 — consumer.servePrimary has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · dispatcher.Pick (cognitive 17) · ×1

dispatcher.Pick (cognitive 17) broker/protocol/dispatcher.go:184 — dispatcher.Pick has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · consumer.txnStep (cognitive 17) · ×1

consumer.txnStep (cognitive 17) consumer/transaction.go:170 — consumer.txnStep has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (9 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FSM.Apply (cognitive 17) · ×1

FSM.Apply (cognitive 17) consumer/recoverylog/fsm.go:173 — FSM.Apply has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (13 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MaxFlow.addFlow (cognitive 16) · ×1

MaxFlow.addFlow (cognitive 16) allocator/sparse_push_relabel/push_relabel.go:419 — MaxFlow.addFlow has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (16 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Service.Append (cognitive 16) · ×1

Service.Append (cognitive 16) broker/append_api.go:16 — Service.Append has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Broker.Replicate (cognitive 16) · ×1

Broker.Replicate (cognitive 16) broker/teststub/broker.go:78 — Broker.Replicate has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (8 pts), if/else 3 (6 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 81). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Broker.Append) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Broker.Append (cognitive 16) · ×1

Broker.Append (cognitive 16) broker/teststub/broker.go:144 — Broker.Append has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (8 pts), if/else 3 (6 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 147). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Broker.Replicate) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · cmdJournalAppend.process (cognitive 16) · ×1

cmdJournalAppend.process (cognitive 16) cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/journals_append.go:190 — cmdJournalAppend.process has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · consumer.VerifyReferencedJournals (cognitive 16) · ×1

consumer.VerifyReferencedJournals (cognitive 16) consumer/shard_api.go:308 — consumer.VerifyReferencedJournals has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 5). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · consumer.runTransactions (cognitive 16) · ×1

consumer.runTransactions (cognitive 16) consumer/transaction.go:22 — consumer.runTransactions has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), loops 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · message.UnpackFixedFrame (cognitive 16) · ×1

message.UnpackFixedFrame (cognitive 16) message/fixed_framing.go:32 — message.UnpackFixedFrame has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×1

FunctionTooLong: recoverylog.playLog consumer/recoverylog/playback.go:228 — FunctionTooLong — playLog runs 161 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 61 over it, 1.61× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1

ClassTooLong: appendFSM REDACTED:22 — ClassTooLong — 415 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 15 methods, 16 blocks, lines 22-812. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.04× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (31 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (31 shared lines) broker/list_apply_api.go:204 — broker/list_apply_api.go:204-274 | consumer/shard_api.go:104-169 — These two members are variants of one another: 31 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

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

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) mainboilerplate/client.go:63 — mainboilerplate/client.go:63-79 | mainboilerplate/client.go:87-103 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) broker/teststub/broker.go:90 — broker/teststub/broker.go:90-105 | broker/teststub/broker.go:156-171 — 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 `broker/teststub/broker.go:90` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) broker/list_apply_api.go:241 — broker/list_apply_api.go:241-254 | consumer/shard_api.go:137-149 — 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 `broker/list_apply_api.go:241` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–12 lines × 2) broker/replica.go:246 — broker/replica.go:246-257 | broker/replica.go:283-291 — 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 `broker/replica.go:246` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) consumer/protocol/auth.go:23 — consumer/protocol/auth.go:23-34 | consumer/protocol/auth.go:67-78 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `consumer/protocol/auth.go:23` 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) broker/stores/azure/common.go:154 — broker/stores/azure/common.go:154-163 | broker/stores/fs/store.go:140-149 | REDACTED:183-192 | broker/stores/s3/store.go:243-252 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 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 4 times. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) broker/fragment_store_health_api.go:19 — broker/fragment_store_health_api.go:19-25 | broker/fragments_api.go:21-27 | broker/list_apply_api.go:207-213 | broker/replicate_api.go:23-29 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `broker/fragment_store_health_api.go:19` 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) broker/append_api.go:23 — broker/append_api.go:23-29 | broker/list_apply_api.go:24-30 | broker/read_api.go:21-27 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `broker/append_api.go:23` 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. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) broker/protocol/fragment_store.go:78 — broker/protocol/fragment_store.go:78-88 | consumer/protocol/shard_spec_extensions.go:346-357 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) broker/append_api.go:30 — broker/append_api.go:30-38 | broker/replicate_api.go:30-37 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `broker/append_api.go:30` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1

Low cohesion: Counter (LCOM4 4) examples/word-count/word_count.go:40 — Counter's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

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

Function without context.Context: New REDACTED:54 — `New` calls `grpc.DialContext(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`.

Minor — 209 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×88

Orphaned file consumer/interfaces.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file allocator/sparse_push_relabel/push_relabel.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file REDACTED:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file allocator/sparse_flow_network.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file broker/protocol/label_extensions.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file broker/protocol/dispatcher.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file broker/protocol/journal_spec_extensions.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file allocator/allocator.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file consumer/resolver.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file consumer/shard.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file consumer/recoverylog/recorder.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file message/interfaces.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file consumer/recoverylog/fsm.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file broker/replica.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/journals_read.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file mainboilerplate/runconsumer/run_consumer.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file allocator/alloc_state.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file allocator/item_state.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file allocator/allocator_key_space.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file broker/protocol/auth.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file broker/journalspace/node.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file message/publisher.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/gazctl/gazctlcmd/journals_append.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file broker/pipeline.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file broker/client/retry_reader.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
+ 63 more in this group — see findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×56

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 31 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×24

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement · No seccomp profile · ×14

No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:4 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile kustomize/bases/example-word-count/patches.yaml:3 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.
No seccomp profile REDACTED:2 — The workload runs a container with no seccomp profile in force (neither RuntimeDefault nor a Localhost profile, on the container or the pod), so Kubernetes runs it Unconfined. Seccomp blocks the syscalls a container never needs, shrinking the kernel attack surface a container escape would use.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×5

README/code drift docs/reference-api.rst:21 — docs/reference-api.rst names `broker/protocol.proto`, but no file or folder `broker/protocol.proto` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-api.rst:28 — docs/reference-api.rst names `consumer/protocol.proto`, but no file or folder `consumer/protocol.proto` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift broker/fragment/README.md:27 — broker/fragment/README.md names `store_s3.go`, but no file or folder `store_s3.go` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift broker/fragment/README.md:28 — broker/fragment/README.md names `store_gcs.go`, but no file or folder `store_gcs.go` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift broker/fragment/README.md:29 — broker/fragment/README.md names `store_azure.go`, but no file or folder `store_azure.go` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Most significant orphaned file · ×3

Most significant orphaned file consumer/recoverylog/playback.go:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file message/sequencer.go:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file consumer/transaction.go:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×2

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 5 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: consumer/shard_api.go, broker/resolver.go, REDACTED, cmd/gazette/main.go, broker/fragment/index.go. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 4 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: REDACTED, consumer/protocol/shard_spec_extensions.go, REDACTED, REDACTED. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×2

Duplicated predicate broker/protocol/rpc_extensions.go:361 — `m.ExpectModRevision < 0 && (m.ExpectModRevision != -1)` appears character-identically in 2 files — broker/protocol/rpc_extensions.go, consumer/protocol/rpc_extensions.go. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate broker/protocol/rpc_extensions.go:367 — `m.ExpectModRevision <= 0 && (m.ExpectModRevision != -1)` appears character-identically in 2 files — broker/protocol/rpc_extensions.go, consumer/protocol/rpc_extensions.go. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 2 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (27280 LoC, 223 module-visible types across 47 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.

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

REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Concentrated knowledge decay · ×1

Concentrated knowledge decay — 91 of 115 significant files have no living knowledge, while the repository is still being changed at a low rate (13 commit(s) in the last 90 days) — so this is one repo-wide knowledge-decay state, not 91 separate risks. Counted over 115 of the 156 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. The code moved on without the people who understood these files: document them or schedule a read-through before the next change lands in them.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D40 · Network Egress Confinement · No network policy · ×1

No network policy — No Kubernetes NetworkPolicy (or Cilium policy) found. Without one, every pod can talk to every other pod and reach out to the internet by default. Add a default-deny policy and open only the flows you need.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

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

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1557 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

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

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

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

Not all functions that make a request accept a context.Context — Only 3/4 functions that make a cancellable request (net/http, net.Dial) accept a context.Context or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a cancelled request, a shutdown, an expired deadline. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it (`http.NewRequestWithContext`, `DialContext`); where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.

Minor — 23 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×23

Outdated: cloud.google.com/go/storage — `cloud.google.com/go/storage` is required at v1.57.0 in REDACTED, but v1.70.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get cloud.google.com/go/storage@v1.70.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azcore — `github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azcore` is required at v1.19.1 in REDACTED, but v1.23.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azcore@v1.23.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azidentity — `github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azidentity` is required at v1.12.0 in REDACTED, but v1.15.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azidentity@v1.15.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/storage/azblob — `github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/storage/azblob` is required at v1.6.2 in REDACTED, but v1.8.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/storage/azblob@v1.8.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/dustin/go-humanize — `github.com/dustin/go-humanize` is required at v1.0.1 in REDACTED, but v1.1.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/dustin/go-humanize@v1.1.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5 — `github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5` is required at v5.3.0 in REDACTED, but v5.3.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5@v5.3.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/klauspost/compress — `github.com/klauspost/compress` is required at v1.18.7 in REDACTED, but v1.20.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/klauspost/compress@v1.20.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/lib/pq — `github.com/lib/pq` is required at v1.10.9 in REDACTED, but v1.12.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/lib/pq@v1.12.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3 — `github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3` is required at v1.14.32 in REDACTED, but v1.14.52 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3@v1.14.52 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/olekukonko/tablewriter — `github.com/olekukonko/tablewriter` is required at v1.1.0 in REDACTED, but v1.1.5 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/olekukonko/tablewriter@v1.1.5 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/prometheus/client_golang — `github.com/prometheus/client_golang` is required at v1.23.2 in REDACTED, but v1.25.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/prometheus/client_golang@v1.25.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/prometheus/client_model — `github.com/prometheus/client_model` is required at v0.6.2 in REDACTED, but v0.6.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/prometheus/client_model@v0.6.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/sirupsen/logrus — `github.com/sirupsen/logrus` is required at v1.9.3 in REDACTED, but v1.10.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/sirupsen/logrus@v1.10.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/stretchr/testify — `github.com/stretchr/testify` is required at v1.11.1 in REDACTED, but v1.12.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/stretchr/testify@v1.12.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: go.etcd.io/etcd/api/v3 — `go.etcd.io/etcd/api/v3` is required at v3.6.5 in REDACTED, but v3.7.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get go.etcd.io/etcd/api/v3@v3.7.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: go.etcd.io/etcd/client/v3 — `go.etcd.io/etcd/client/v3` is required at v3.6.5 in REDACTED, but v3.7.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get go.etcd.io/etcd/client/v3@v3.7.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/net — `golang.org/x/net` is required at v0.60.0 in REDACTED, but v0.61.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/net@v0.61.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/oauth2 — `golang.org/x/oauth2` is required at v0.36.0 in REDACTED, but v0.37.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/oauth2@v0.37.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/sync — `golang.org/x/sync` is required at v0.23.0 in REDACTED, but v0.24.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/sync@v0.24.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: google.golang.org/api — `google.golang.org/api` is required at v0.264.0 in REDACTED, but v0.307.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get google.golang.org/api@v0.307.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: google.golang.org/grpc — `google.golang.org/grpc` is required at v1.83.2 in REDACTED, but v1.84.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get google.golang.org/grpc@v1.84.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: google.golang.org/protobuf — `google.golang.org/protobuf` is required at v1.36.11 in REDACTED, but v1.36.12 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get google.golang.org/protobuf@v1.36.12 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: k8s.io/api — `k8s.io/api` is required at v0.34.1 in REDACTED, but v0.37.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get k8s.io/api@v0.37.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-667aa336cc4e4975a43ef7e6048cda86/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-667aa336cc4e4975a43ef7e6048cda86/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	72	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm . /tmp/codehealth-osv-sbom-40983c62e5fd4024bbe7645beb5582a0	3	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	311	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm . /tmp/codehealth-osv-sbom-40983c62e5fd4024bbe7645beb5582a0	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a1625c-3f26-76a8-b141-bd5a924818e9 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 86% · Adequate · gated by D2 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 93% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 36% · Weak · gated by D34, M2, M4 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 54% · Adequate · gated by P3, P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 58% · Adequate · gated by D29, D31, D36 ·

At a glance — Performance · 74% · Strong ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts