grpc-rust — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

Band capped at Weak: the weakest category (Security, 0%) reads Critical — the cover never out-promises the category table.

Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.

The system holds a 62% health score, indicating a workable asset that carries significant operational risk. While the underlying code is robust and well-structured, the platform’s readiness for safe, secure, and reliable delivery is compromised. This gap threatens business continuity by increasing the likelihood of outages, security breaches, and delayed releases, despite the system’s moderate size and manageable rebuild cost of approximately €120,000.

The primary concern is Operational Fragility. With a readiness score of 51%, the system lacks the safeguards needed for stable production. There are no automated gates to prevent bad builds from reaching users, meaning a single error can disrupt service or expose customers to faulty software. This absence of release controls directly impacts delivery speed and reliability, as teams must manually verify every deployment, slowing down innovation and increasing the risk of human error. The cost of this fragility is measured in potential downtime and the erosion of customer trust.

A more urgent threat is Security Exposure. The analysis identified eight leaked secrets, including critical server keys, which represent a severe vulnerability. These credentials, if exposed, could allow unauthorized access to sensitive data or infrastructure. This is not a theoretical risk but an active liability that requires immediate remediation. The presence of these secrets undermines the system’s security posture and could lead to regulatory penalties or data breaches, making this the highest-leverage area for immediate action.

On the positive side, the codebase is Highly Maintainable. With a code health score of 93% and architecture at 94%, the system is clean, well-organized, and easy for new teams to understand. This strong foundation means that fixing the operational and security issues will not require a costly rewrite. The logic is sound, and the structure supports future changes without excessive technical debt.

Focus first on remediating the leaked secrets. This action offers the highest return on effort by immediately reducing security risk. Once secured, implement automated release gates to stabilize operations. This two-step approach addresses the most critical vulnerabilities while leveraging the system’s strong underlying code quality.

Code Health 93% ★ Exemplary Architecture 94% ★ Exemplary Maturity 65% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 51% Adequate · gated by D13 Security 60% Adequate · gated by D28, D36 Event Sourcing 100% ★ Exemplary Performance 100% ★ Exemplary

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Readiness 51% · 46% weightSecurity 60% · 25% weightMaturity 65% · 14% weightCode Health 93% · 8% weightArchitecture 94% · 4% weightEvent Sourcing 100% · 2% weightPerformance 100% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 51 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 62 → ~68.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (30+)

30 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-12) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D1 · AdsWorker::add_watcher (cyclomatic 16) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs
D2 · AdsWorker::add_watcher (cognitive 40) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs
D2 · AdsWorker::run_stream_task (cognitive 19) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs
D4 · Edited copy of a member (35 corresponding lines) grpc-protobuf/src/server/server_streaming.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) grpc-protobuf/src/server/server_streaming.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (11–15 lines × 2) grpc-protobuf/src/server/client_streaming.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) grpc/src/client/load_balancing/child_manager.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 2) tonic-build/src/client.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs
D5 · Off the main sequence: tonic-build
D5 · Off the main sequence: tonic-prost
D5 · Off the main sequence: tonic
D5 · Off the main sequence: xds-client
D5 · Off the main sequence: grpc-protobuf-build
D5 · Off the main sequence: tonic-prost-build
D15 · Hotspot: xds-client/src/client/worker.rs xds-client/src/client/worker.rs
D17 · TodoComment grpc-protobuf/src/lib.rs
D17 · TodoComment grpc/src/send_future.rs
D17 · TodoComment grpc-protobuf/src/server/unary.rs
D22 · Inconsistent API surface for CallOptions between client and server. The client-side CallOptions exposes mutable setters and getters for properties like deadline, whereas the server-side CallOptions only exposes a constructor with no visible property accessors or setters. This suggests a divergence in how call configuration is handled or exposed.
D22 · Inconsistent parameter naming and typing for SendStream.send. Client uses `msg` typed as `&dyn SendMessage`, while server uses `item` typed as `ResponseStreamItem`. While the types differ due to context (request vs response), the parameter name inconsistency (`msg` vs `item`) is confusing for developers switching contexts.
D22 · Inconsistent method naming for receiving messages. Client uses `recv`, while server uses `next`. These perform the same logical operation (advancing the stream and retrieving the next message) but have different names and return types (`ResponseStreamItem` vs `Result`).
D22 · Inconsistent parameter naming in dynamic send streams. Client uses `msg`, server uses `item`. Same issue as the non-dynamic streams.
D22 · Inconsistent method naming in dynamic receive streams. Client uses `dyn_recv`, server uses `dyn_next`. This mirrors the inconsistency in the non-dynamic streams.
D22 · Duplicate WorkScheduler types in different modules. Both `grpc.client.name_resolution.WorkScheduler` and `grpc.client.load_balancing.WorkScheduler` have the same signature `schedule_work(data: WorkData)`. It is unclear if these are distinct interfaces or if one is a duplicate/refactor artifact.
D22 · Inconsistent method naming and signatures for ChannelController. The name resolution controller uses `update` with a `ResolverUpdate`, while the load balancing controller uses `update_picker` with an `LbState`. These are likely part of the same controller interface but are split or named inconsistently.
D22 · Inconsistent interceptor signatures. Client interceptors return streams `(SendStream, RecvStream)`, while server interceptors return `Trailers` and take explicit `tx`/`rx` streams. This makes it difficult to write shared interceptor logic or understand the flow.
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED
D29 · REDACTED

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €39,000–€200,000

Cost to rebuild	€39,000–€200,000 (0.4–1.2 person-years (655–2,077 h), ~1–2 engineers)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.8× (at 62% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.8 person-years of build effort (about ~€120,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 51% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

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

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED.

+9.8 pts · Low effort · REDACTED Scanning

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.

+9.8 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

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.

+9.8 pts · Medium effort · Deployment & Rollback

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk

This is a Medium asset (~0.8 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 51%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.8 person-years rebuild (91,512 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 51%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED.

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

Architecture — module dependency matrix

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

289 modules, 656 dependencies. 9 dependency cycles across 36 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 249 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 grpc.attributes	2 grpc.client.load_balancing.subchannel.private	3 grpc.credentials.common	4 grpc.private	5 grpc.server.service	6 tonic.codec.compression	8 xds_client.resource	9 grpc.client.name_resolution.dns	11 tonic.status	12 grpc.client.name_resolution	13 tonic.transport.error	14 grpc.metadata.value	15 grpc.rt	16 grpc.credentials.client	17 grpc.metadata.key	18 grpc.credentials	19 grpc.metadata.map	20 grpc.core	21 grpc.credentials.rustls.client	22 tonic.request	23 tonic_types.richer_error	24 grpc.client	25 grpc.client.transport	26 tonic.client.grpc	27 tonic_types.generated.google_rpc	28 tonic_xds.client.retry	29 grpc.client.load_balancing	31 grpc.client.transport.tonic	32 grpc.server	35 xds_client.client.config	36 grpc.client.channel
1 grpc.attributes
2 grpc.client.load_balancing.subchannel.private
3 grpc.credentials.common
4 grpc.private
5 grpc.server.service
6 tonic.codec.compression
7 tonic.server
8 xds_client.resource
9 grpc.client.name_resolution.dns										7
10 grpc_xds.resource.endpoint							1
11 tonic.status											4						2
12 grpc.client.name_resolution	2							1					1					2
13 tonic.transport.error									1
14 grpc.metadata.value											1
15 grpc.rt				2						3
16 grpc.credentials.client	1		2	1									1			3
17 grpc.metadata.key				1							1	1					5
18 grpc.credentials	1		1	2									2	1
19 grpc.metadata.map				3								3			2
20 grpc.core	1															1
21 grpc.credentials.rustls.client			2	1									1	2		2
22 tonic.request		2															1
23 tonic_types.richer_error		2							3								1								20
24 grpc.client																	3	2
25 grpc.client.transport			1										2	1				3
26 tonic.client.grpc						3														2
27 tonic_types.generated.google_rpc		1							1								1				2
28 tonic_xds.client.retry					2				2											2
29 grpc.client.load_balancing										1			1				1	1				5
30 grpc.client.subchannel		1	2										2					3				3	3
31 grpc.client.transport.tonic													2					3		3		7	3	1
32 grpc.server		1		3									2				3	1				13	1
33 grpc_protobuf.client				1				1	1									1				1
34 tonic_xds.client.channel					1																					2
35 xds_client.client.config	1																									1
36 grpc.client.channel			1					1		2			4					1				5	3				5
37 grpc.client.load_balancing.pick_first										2			2					1				3					9
38 grpc.inmemory		1		3						4			2					3				3	4						2
39 tonic.transport.server					2															1									2
40 xds_client.transport.tonic		1															1		1				1					1		1	1

Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 93% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 9.1 D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 7.4 D3 · Rust God Classes 9.5 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.7 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.9

At a glance — Architecture · 94% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 7.6 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 8.1 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.4 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.9 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Ugly

D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 4.0

At a glance — Maturity · 65% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 9.0 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 7.2 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 9.2 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Ugly

D20 · Rust ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 51% · Adequate · gated by D13 ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 9.9 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 8.7 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 5.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

The Ugly

D13 · Rust REDACTED Scanning 0.0

At a glance — Security · 60% · Adequate · gated by D28, D36 ·

The Good

D31 · Rust IaC & Container Security 10.0 D37 · Rust Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0

The Bad

D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 6.0

The Ugly

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 0.0 D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

ES1 · Repo Fold determinism 10.0 ES2 · Repo Immutable events 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	80	High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	23	High / Critical

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the eight leaked secrets, prioritizing the server key files, and enable automated dependency scanning to prevent future vulnerabilities. Implement a release gate to pause deployments for manual approval, ensuring bad builds cannot reach users, while extending structured logging across all remaining modules to improve production diagnosability. Finally, document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated directory to preserve context and consequences for future reference.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED.	+9.8 pts	Low	REDACTED Scanning
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.	+9.8 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
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.	+9.8 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+4.1 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.	+5.2 pts	Medium	Observability
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+4.2 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.	+4.0 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED.	+1.5 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 91 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 0% slop · 31% mixed · 69% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
grpc-protobuf-build/src/lib.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
xds-client/src/client/worker.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
tonic/src/codec/decode.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
grpc-xds/src/resource/endpoint.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
grpc-xds/src/resource/route.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
tonic/src/transport/channel/endpoint.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs	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 — 103

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 — 174

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 — 17

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

Could not be resolved — 52

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. 35 of 40 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 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 — 40 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D9D13D15D16D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D31D34D35D36D37D44AX10AX3AX4AX8AX9ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6PF3

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, 262 of 294 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 01a0eacb-89c4-7902-af45-251aeacb02d1.

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.

D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — 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's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
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 (.rs) 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 (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) 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 (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (repository root, 167 test files), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 84 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, and no committed Cargo.lock resolves them to versions, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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. Osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 'osv-scanner' exited 128 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the repository.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — 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. Osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 'osv-scanner' exited 128 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX2 Stateful singletons — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — 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. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, or a Dockerfile. None was found, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P10 Library API & versioning — 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 NuGet packaging and C# public API only, and no .NET project was loaded for 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.
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X10 Duplicated predicate — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations (.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.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
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 (5): D19, D21, D22, 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 Complexity9.1 / 10Stronggated by 8 serious findings✓ 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 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was interop::bin::client::main at 20. A further 6 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being Code::from_bytes at 20 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 3 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: tonic/src/status.rs (Code::from_bytes at 20), grpc-protobuf/src/status.rs (StatusCodeError::from at 17), grpc/src/status/status_code.rs (StatusCodeError::from at 17). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

Builder::compile_with_config (cyclomatic 19) · ×2tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:753

interop::bin::client::main (cyclomatic 20)interop/src/bin/client.rs:81

GrpcWebCall::poll_frame (cyclomatic 18)tonic-web/src/call.rs:282

TonicBuildMethod::request_response_name (cyclomatic 17)tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:228

CodeGen::compile (cyclomatic 16)grpc-protobuf-build/src/lib.rs:322

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

What to do

Resolve the 2 Builder finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 interop finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with client.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 GrpcWebCall finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with call.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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 Complexity7.4 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

20 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AdsWorker::add_watcher at 40.

AdsWorker::add_watcher (cognitive 40) · ×4xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:895

grpc_benchmark::client::blocking_streaming (cognitive 22) · ×2grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:384

Builder::compile_with_config (cognitive 19) · ×2tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:753

StreamingInner::decode_chunk (cognitive 34)tonic/src/codec/decode.rs:172

GrpcWebCall::poll_frame (cognitive 29)tonic-web/src/call.rs:282

+ 10 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 AdsWorker finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with worker.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 grpc_benchmark finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with client.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Builder finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
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 Classes9.5 / 10Stronggated by 13 serious findings✓ 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

13 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: ErrorDetails · ×5tonic-types/src/richer_error/error_details/mod.rs:41

FileTooLong: client/worker.rs · ×4xds-client/src/client/worker.rs

FunctionTooLong: grpc_benchmark::bin::bench::main · ×2grpc-benchmark/src/bin/bench.rs:135

ClassTooLong: AdsWorkerxds-client/src/client/worker.rs:547

MethodTooLong: BenchmarkClient.startgrpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:73

What to do

Resolve the 5 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with mod.rs (2), endpoint.rs, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with worker.rs, map.rs, mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with bench.rs, server.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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 Duplication9.7 / 10Stronggated by 51 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 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

47 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 4 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×5grpc/src/codec/compression/gzip.rs:102

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×5tonic-build/src/client.rs:265

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3tonic-build/src/manual.rs:409

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3tonic/src/status.rs:876

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3grpc/src/credentials/rustls/server/mod.rs:257

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

What to do

Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with gzip.rs, server.rs, endpoint.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with client.rs, lazy.rs, unix.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with manual.rs, worker.rs, mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 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 · Coupling7.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

20 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 6 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 18 of the 20 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or are not Gradle/Maven modules or Cargo crates).

Off the main sequence: tonic-build · ×6

What to do

Resolve the 6 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution9.9 / 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1144 test methods: 1082 unit, 57 integration, 0 BDD, 5 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 1144 `#[test]` function(s) across 167 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 29 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · REDACTED Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
Enforce REDACTED Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: xds-client/src/client/worker.rs (7×16=112); interop/src/bin/client.rs (3×20=60)

Hotspot: xds-client/src/client/worker.rs · ×2xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:895

What to do

Resolve the 2 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with worker.rs, client.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

26 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is grpc-xds/src/resource/route.rs. Counted over 248 of the 291 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×3

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

What to do

Resolve the 3 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Stronggated by 61 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

61 deducted task-comment markers across 91512 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 · ×55grpc-benchmark/build.rs:53

FixmeComment · ×6tonic/src/status.rs:406

What to do

Resolve the 55 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with mod.rs (10), pick_first.rs (6), status.u.pb.rs (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (55 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with compression.rs (3), status.rs, decode.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 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 QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README gives a strong overview of tonic as an open source gRPC framework with three main components (generic gRPC impl, high-performance HTTP/2 impl, codegen powered by prost), features list, and getting-started guidance. It also documents the examples directory (README.md) and several subdirectories such as grpc-protobuf-build, grpc-protobuf, protoc-gen-rust-grpc, tonic-health, tonic-prost, tonic-reflection, tonic-types, and tonic-web with their own focused READMEs covering build setup, usage, features, and testing. The documentation is comprehensive for a Rust framework project but lacks an architecture/design doc (the summary says only markdown files are present) and the root README does not cover installation/usage/contributing/licence as it would for a repository-wide document. The repository's READMEs are all directory-specific (benchmarks-disabled, gcp, health, tls) and document what those directories contain rather than the project as a whole. There is no single root README covering installation, usage, or contribution guidance; each README is self-contained for its tier but lacks an overview of the project's purpose and a repository-level install/usage section.

Documentation: no project overviewtonic/benches-disabled/README.md

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyWeak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

8 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 412 exposed types.

Inconsistent API surface for CallOptions between client and server. The client-side CallOptions exposes mutable setters and getters for properties like deadline, whereas the server-side CallOptions only exposes a constructor with no visible property accessors or setters. This suggests a divergence in how call configuration is handled or exposed.

Inconsistent parameter naming and typing for SendStream.send. Client uses `msg` typed as `&dyn SendMessage`, while server uses `item` typed as `ResponseStreamItem`. While the types differ due to context (request vs response), the parameter name inconsistency (`msg` vs `item`) is confusing for developers switching contexts.

Inconsistent method naming for receiving messages. Client uses `recv`, while server uses `next`. These perform the same logical operation (advancing the stream and retrieving the next message) but have different names and return types (`ResponseStreamItem` vs `Result`).

Inconsistent parameter naming in dynamic send streams. Client uses `msg`, server uses `item`. Same issue as the non-dynamic streams.

Inconsistent method naming in dynamic receive streams. Client uses `dyn_recv`, server uses `dyn_next`. This mirrors the inconsistency in the non-dynamic streams.

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent API surface for CallOptions between client and server. The… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent parameter naming and typing for SendStream.send. Client… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent method naming for receiving messages. Client uses `recv`,… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 of 21 build units (Cargo) 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)0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

14 finding(s): 0 critical, 14 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 14 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

80 finding(s): 0 critical, 80 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 77 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 3 file(s) — `interop/update_binaries.sh` (line 12), `tonic-xds/src/client/circuit_breaking.rs` (line 559), `tonic-xds/src/xds/routing.rs` (line 327) — 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

What to do

Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 77 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 (77 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?

D31 · IaC & Container Security10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

trivy and checkov found no infrastructure-as-code or container misconfigurations.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.2 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

19 of 248 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is tonic-types/src/richer_error/error_details/mod.rs. Counted over 248 of the 291 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned knowledgetonic-types/src/richer_error/error_details/mod.rs

Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.4 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: REDACTED↔REDACTED 81%; REDACTED↔REDACTED 71%; REDACTED↔REDACTED 65%

Change coupling: request.rs ↔ response.rs · ×2tonic/src/request.rs

Change coupling clique: REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTEDtonic-build/src/lib.rs

What to do

Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with request.rs, decode.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Change coupling clique finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.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. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-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?

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

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

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_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?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. 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?

ES1 · Fold determinism10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the recovery-replay fold is deterministic — state derived purely from each event's own fields, no clock/random/IO on the replay path.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES2 · Immutable events10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether domain events stay immutable (private fields, set once) rather than carrying mutable state.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-sourcing gated): persisted events checked for public setters; immutability verified per property/field. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

294 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add a README to the 9 of 22 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.8 pts.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.

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

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 accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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 · Observability8.7 / 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.

Only 5/9 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `codegen`, `grpc`, `grpc-benchmark`, `xds-client`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

What to do

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 & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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	93%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	94%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	65%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	51%	Adequate — gated by D13	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	60%	Adequate — gated by D28, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event Sourcing	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Solid.

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 — 76 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 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
AX2 Stateful singletons — 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
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~15148 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 84 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, and no committed Cargo.lock resolves them to versions, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 380 shipped crate(s) were read from its Cargo.lock, but crates.io could not be asked for the licence of 50 of them (HTTP 429 Unknown Error), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. 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 — symbol resolution incomplete — too few calls resolved to assess navigability
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
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.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — D6 reads a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART/JAVA/PY/KT/TS/TSX/MTS/CTS/JS/JSX/MJS/CJS/PHP class graph only — this repository's production source is .cc, .rs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 49 value object(s); 1 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — 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
P10 Library API & versioning — 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'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the Python, Rust source (service entry point: grpc-benchmark/src/server.rs:41 (tonic::transport::Server))
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 (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not 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
PF2 Allocation hygiene — 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
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 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
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 103 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · 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
REDACTED
+ 52 more in this group — see findings.md.

D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×14

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

D13 · REDACTED Scanning · Leaked secret · ×8

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×1

Orphaned knowledge tonic-types/src/richer_error/error_details/mod.rs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.

Serious — 174 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×55

TodoComment grpc-benchmark/build.rs:53 — // TODO: Use gRPC servers when available. — 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 grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:113 — // TODO: Implement poisson load distribution when adding support — 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 grpc-protobuf-build/src/lib.rs:163 — // TODO: Delay this check until the field is read in order to allow — 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 grpc-protobuf/generated/google/rpc/status.u.pb.rs:88 — // TODO: b/361751487: This .into() and .try_into() is only — 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 grpc-protobuf/generated/google/rpc/status.u.pb.rs:218 — // TODO: b/361751487: This .into() and .try_into() is only — 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 grpc-protobuf/generated/google/rpc/status.u.pb.rs:358 — // TODO: b/361751487: This .into() and .try_into() is only — 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 grpc-protobuf/generated/google/rpc/status.u.pb.rs:231 — // TODO: b/361751487: This .into() is only 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 grpc-protobuf/generated/google/rpc/status.u.pb.rs:371 — // TODO: b/361751487: This .into() is only 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 grpc-protobuf/src/trailers_conv.rs:151 — // TODO: reconsider this error handling; it will be sent to the client. But it may also never — 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 grpc-protobuf/src/lib.rs:176 — // TODO: delete this type once MSRV is v1.92. — 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 grpc/src/send_future.rs:67 — // TODO: delete this type once MSRV is v1.92. — 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 grpc-protobuf/src/server/unary.rs:95 — // TODO: Allocate both the request and response messages together in an — 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 grpc-xds/src/xds_config.rs:32 — // TODO: remove once the xDS dependency manager is implemented. — 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 grpc-xds/src/resource/route.rs:29 — // TODO: implement request routing components (virtual-host domain matching, then — 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 grpc-xds/src/resource/route.rs:502 — // TODO: remove once dependency manager calls this. — 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 grpc-xds/src/resource/mod.rs:31 — // TODO: remove once the xDS dependency manager subscribes to these resource — 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 grpc-xds/src/resource/endpoint.rs:54 — // TODO: consider unifying with `xds_client::message::Locality` (same — 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 grpc-xds/src/resource/endpoint.rs:74 — // TODO: reuse `grpc::client::name_resolution::Address` when wiring resolver. — 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 grpc-xds/src/resource/cluster.rs:40 — // TODO: model `transport_socket` (security) and load-balancing-policy — 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 grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs:75 — // TODO(easwars): Move this somewhere else, where appropriate. — 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 grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs:335 — // TODO: should be configurable — 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 grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs:412 — // TODO(easwars): Does it make sense for disconnected() to return an — 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 grpc/src/client/mod.rs:461 — // TODO: make public once fields are fixed. — 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 grpc/src/server/mod.rs:554 — // TODO: make public once fields are fixed. — 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 grpc/src/client/channel.rs:198 — // TODO(nathanielford) This construction is currently a rough-cut placeholder. — 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.
+ 30 more in this group — see findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×6

FixmeComment tonic/src/status.rs:406 — // FIXME: bubble this into `transport` and expose generic http2 reasons. — 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.
FixmeComment tonic/src/codec/decode.rs:294 — // FIXME: improve buf usage. — 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.
FixmeComment tonic/src/codec/compression.rs:254 — // FIXME: support customizing the compression level — 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.
FixmeComment tonic/src/codec/compression.rs:263 — // FIXME: support customizing the compression level — 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.
FixmeComment tonic/src/codec/compression.rs:272 — // FIXME: support customizing the compression level — 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.
FixmeComment tonic/src/transport/channel/endpoint.rs:86 — // FIXME: determine if we want to expose this or not. This is really — 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.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×6

Off the main sequence: tonic-build — tonic-build: abstractness 0.20, instability 0.00, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: tonic-prost — tonic-prost: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.20, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: tonic — tonic: abstractness 0.20, instability 0.00, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 8 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: xds-client — xds-client: abstractness 0.21, instability 0.00, distance 0.79 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: grpc-protobuf-build — grpc-protobuf-build: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.25, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: tonic-prost-build — tonic-prost-build: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.25, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×5

TooManyMethods: ErrorDetails tonic-types/src/richer_error/error_details/mod.rs:41 — TooManyMethods — 43 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 13 over it, 1.43× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
TooManyMethods: Endpoint tonic/src/transport/channel/endpoint.rs:56 — TooManyMethods — 42 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 12 over it, 1.40× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
TooManyMethods: Builder tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:424 — TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
TooManyMethods: MetadataMap tonic/src/metadata/map.rs:61 — TooManyMethods — 33 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 3 over it, 1.10× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
TooManyMethods: Server tonic/src/transport/server/mod.rs:114 — TooManyMethods — 33 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 3 over it, 1.10× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (REDACTED) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) grpc/src/codec/compression/gzip.rs:102 — grpc/src/codec/compression/gzip.rs:102-112 | grpc/src/codec/compression/gzip.rs:163-173 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tonic-build/src/server.rs:335 — tonic-build/src/server.rs:335-345 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:360-370 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) grpc-xds/src/resource/endpoint.rs:302 — grpc-xds/src/resource/endpoint.rs:302-312 | tonic-xds/src/xds/resource/endpoints.rs:199-209 — 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 (11 lines × 2) grpc/src/metadata/key.rs:126 — grpc/src/metadata/key.rs:126-136 | tonic/src/metadata/key.rs:126-136 — 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 (11 lines × 2) codegen/src/main.rs:51 — codegen/src/main.rs:51-63 | codegen/src/main.rs:65-75 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) tonic-build/src/client.rs:265 — tonic-build/src/client.rs:265-270 | tonic-build/src/client.rs:296-301 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) grpc/src/client/load_balancing/lazy.rs:174 — grpc/src/client/load_balancing/lazy.rs:174-179 | grpc/src/client/load_balancing/pick_first.rs:681-686 — 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 (6 lines × 2) grpc/src/client/name_resolution/unix.rs:46 — grpc/src/client/name_resolution/unix.rs:46-51 | grpc/src/client/name_resolution/unix_abstract.rs:46-51 — 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 (6 lines × 2) grpc-xds/src/resource/listener.rs:153 — grpc-xds/src/resource/listener.rs:153-158 | tonic-xds/src/xds/resource/listener.rs:119-124 — 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 (6 lines × 2) tonic/src/body.rs:105 — tonic/src/body.rs:105-110 | tonic/src/service/interceptor.rs:278-283 — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AdsWorker · ×4

AdsWorker::add_watcher (cognitive 40) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:895 — AdsWorker::add_watcher has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), match/switch 4 (13 pts), loops 2 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 25). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: xds-client/src/client/worker.rs holds 4 of the 20 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 43 of the 139 points over it (31%), 2.3× the next-largest file (tonic/src/codec/decode.rs at 19). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
AdsWorker::run (cognitive 27) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:625 — AdsWorker::run has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (16 pts), if/else 3 (6 pts), loops 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: xds-client/src/client/worker.rs holds 4 of the 20 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 43 of the 139 points over it (31%), 2.3× the next-largest file (tonic/src/codec/decode.rs at 19). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
AdsWorker::run_stream_task (cognitive 19) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:803 — AdsWorker::run_stream_task has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (10 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), loops 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: xds-client/src/client/worker.rs holds 4 of the 20 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 43 of the 139 points over it (31%), 2.3× the next-largest file (tonic/src/codec/decode.rs at 19). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
AdsWorker::run_connected (cognitive 17) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:758 — AdsWorker::run_connected has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 2 (8 pts), match/switch 3 (8 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: xds-client/src/client/worker.rs holds 4 of the 20 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 43 of the 139 points over it (31%), 2.3× the next-largest file (tonic/src/codec/decode.rs at 19). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×4

FileTooLong: client/worker.rs xds-client/src/client/worker.rs — FileTooLong — 775 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 65% of them inside a single declaration: AdsWorker (2 blocks, 547-1451). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 275 over it, 1.55× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: metadata/map.rs tonic/src/metadata/map.rs — FileTooLong — 740 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 240 over it, 1.48× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: server/mod.rs tonic/src/transport/server/mod.rs — FileTooLong — 723 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 223 over it, 1.45× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: REDACTED tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 545 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 45 over it, 1.09× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) tonic-build/src/manual.rs:409 — tonic-build/src/manual.rs:409-420 | tonic-build/src/manual.rs:423-434 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:1328 — xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:1328-1339 | xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:1355-1366 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) grpc/src/credentials/rustls/client/mod.rs:139 — grpc/src/credentials/rustls/client/mod.rs:139-150 | grpc/src/credentials/rustls/server/mod.rs:229-240 — 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 (10 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) tonic/src/status.rs:876 — tonic/src/status.rs:876-885 | tonic/src/status.rs:904-913 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:658 — xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:658-667 | xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:670-679 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:1056 — xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:1056-1065 | xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:1337-1346 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) grpc/src/credentials/rustls/server/mod.rs:257 — grpc/src/credentials/rustls/server/mod.rs:257-265 | grpc/src/credentials/rustls/server/mod.rs:271-279 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) grpc-protobuf/src/client/server_streaming.rs:94 — grpc-protobuf/src/client/server_streaming.rs:94-102 | grpc-protobuf/src/client/unary.rs:122-130 — 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 (9 lines × 2) tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs:110 — tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs:110-118 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/quota_failure.rs:128-136 — before extracting anything, compare `tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs` and `tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/quota_failure.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 31 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs:125 — grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs:125-131 | grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs:136-142 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) grpc/src/client/load_balancing/mod.rs:489 — grpc/src/client/load_balancing/mod.rs:489-495 | grpc/src/client/load_balancing/pick_first.rs:656-662 — 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) interop/src/bin/client.rs:58 — interop/src/bin/client.rs:58-64 | interop/src/bin/server.rs:48-54 — 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Builder · ×2

Builder::compile_with_config (cyclomatic 19) tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:753 — Builder::compile_with_config has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
Builder::compile_fds_with_config (cyclomatic 18) tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:875 — Builder::compile_fds_with_config has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×2

Hotspot: xds-client/src/client/worker.rs xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:895 — xds-client/src/client/worker.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in AdsWorker::add_watcher at line 895. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 09:08:08 -07:00' --until='2026-09-28 09:08:08 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- xds-client/src/client/worker.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: interop/src/bin/client.rs interop/src/bin/client.rs:81 — interop/src/bin/client.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 20 in interop::bin::client::main at line 81. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 09:08:08 -07:00' --until='2026-09-28 09:08:08 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- interop/src/bin/client.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · grpc_benchmark · ×2

grpc_benchmark::client::blocking_streaming (cognitive 22) grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:384 — grpc_benchmark::client::blocking_streaming has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (21 pts), loops 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.
grpc_benchmark::client::blocking_unary (cognitive 20) grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:338 — grpc_benchmark::client::blocking_unary has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (19 pts), loops 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 · Builder · ×2

Builder::compile_with_config (cognitive 19) tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:753 — Builder::compile_with_config has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, loops 7, boolean chains 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.
Builder::compile_fds_with_config (cognitive 18) tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:875 — Builder::compile_fds_with_config has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10, loops 7, boolean chains 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.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×2

FunctionTooLong: grpc_benchmark::bin::bench::main grpc-benchmark/src/bin/bench.rs:135 — FunctionTooLong — grpc_benchmark::bin::bench::main runs 143 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 43 over it, 1.43× 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.
FunctionTooLong: tonic_build::server::generate_internal tonic-build/src/server.rs:37 — FunctionTooLong — tonic_build::server::generate_internal runs 123 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.23× 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.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2

Change coupling: request.rs ↔ response.rs tonic/src/request.rs — `tonic/src/request.rs` and `tonic/src/response.rs` change together 57% of the time (8 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `a09d4534` optimize header name handling in `Grpc::map_response` (#1359); `911ce6c4` chore(doc): Enable doc_auto_cfg (#1742); `ed95d276` feat: Use http::Extensions directly (#1710) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: decode.rs ↔ encode.rs tonic/src/codec/decode.rs — `tonic/src/codec/decode.rs` and `tonic/src/codec/encode.rs` change together 54% of the time (19 of the 35 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 19 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `3a706b24` chore: Use Status constructor for each kind of status (#1913); `0964cb24` feat(grpc-web): make public codec methods to enable grpc-web client a…; `c7836521` add more explicit logging (#1658) — run `git show` on any of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) grpc/src/metadata/map.rs:1056 — grpc/src/metadata/map.rs:1056-1081 | grpc/src/metadata/map.rs:1105-1130 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) tonic/src/transport/channel/endpoint.rs:109 — tonic/src/transport/channel/endpoint.rs:109-134 | tonic/src/transport/channel/endpoint.rs:140-165 — 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 (20 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) grpc-protobuf/src/status.rs:137 — grpc-protobuf/src/status.rs:137-156 | grpc/src/status/status_code.rs:151-170 — 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 (20 lines × 2) tonic-build/src/server.rs:532 — tonic-build/src/server.rs:532-551 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:657-676 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) grpc-protobuf/src/client/bidi.rs:91 — grpc-protobuf/src/client/bidi.rs:91-98 | grpc-protobuf/src/client/client_streaming.rs:103-110 — 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 (8 lines × 2) tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs:125 — tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs:125-132 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/quota_failure.rs:143-150 — before extracting anything, compare `tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs` and `tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/quota_failure.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 31 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · interop · ×1

interop::bin::client::main (cyclomatic 20) interop/src/bin/client.rs:81 — interop::bin::client::main has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GrpcWebCall · ×1

GrpcWebCall::poll_frame (cyclomatic 18) tonic-web/src/call.rs:282 — GrpcWebCall::poll_frame has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TonicBuildMethod · ×1

TonicBuildMethod::request_response_name (cyclomatic 17) tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:228 — TonicBuildMethod::request_response_name 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 · CodeGen · ×1

CodeGen::compile (cyclomatic 16) grpc-protobuf-build/src/lib.rs:322 — CodeGen::compile has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TlsConnector · ×1

TlsConnector::new (cyclomatic 16) tonic/src/transport/channel/service/tls.rs:57 — TlsConnector::new 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 · AdsWorker · ×1

AdsWorker::add_watcher (cyclomatic 16) xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:895 — AdsWorker::add_watcher 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · StreamingInner · ×1

StreamingInner::decode_chunk (cognitive 34) tonic/src/codec/decode.rs:172 — StreamingInner::decode_chunk has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (31 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GrpcWebCall · ×1

GrpcWebCall::poll_frame (cognitive 29) tonic-web/src/call.rs:282 — GrpcWebCall::poll_frame has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (19 pts), if/else 4 (7 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EndpointsResource · ×1

EndpointsResource::validate (cognitive 24) grpc-xds/src/resource/endpoint.rs:132 — EndpointsResource::validate has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), loops 3 (4 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 · CodeGen · ×1

CodeGen::compile (cognitive 21) grpc-protobuf-build/src/lib.rs:322 — CodeGen::compile has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 7 (12 pts), if/else 9 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TlsConnector · ×1

TlsConnector::new (cognitive 21) tonic/src/transport/channel/service/tls.rs:57 — TlsConnector::new has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), match/switch 3, loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · grpc · ×1

grpc::client::transport::http_connect::do_connect_handshake (cognitive 20) grpc/src/client/transport/http_connect/mod.rs:54 — grpc::client::transport::http_connect::do_connect_handshake has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), match/switch 1 (2 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 · TonicBuildMethod · ×1

TonicBuildMethod::request_response_name (cognitive 20) tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:228 — TonicBuildMethod::request_response_name has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 4). 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 · Reconnect · ×1

Reconnect::poll_ready (cognitive 19) tonic/src/transport/channel/service/reconnect.rs:86 — Reconnect::poll_ready has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (11 pts), if/else 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · grpc_xds · ×1

grpc_xds::resource::route::validate_route_action (cognitive 18) grpc-xds/src/resource/route.rs:443 — grpc_xds::resource::route::validate_route_action has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 10). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · interop · ×1

interop::bin::client::main (cognitive 18) interop/src/bin/client.rs:81 — interop::bin::client::main has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (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 · UnencodedHeaderValue · ×1

UnencodedHeaderValue::fmt (cognitive 17) grpc/src/metadata/value.rs:96 — UnencodedHeaderValue::fmt has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 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 · BenchmarkClient · ×1

BenchmarkClient::start (cognitive 16) grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:73 — BenchmarkClient::start has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (11 pts), match/switch 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent API surface for CallOptions between client and server. The client-side CallOptions exposes mutable setters and getters for properties like deadline, whereas the server-side CallOptions only exposes a constructor with no visible property accessors or setters. This suggests a divergence in how call configuration is handled or exposed. · ×1

Inconsistent API surface for CallOptions between client and server. The client-side CallOptions exposes mutable setters and getters for properties like deadline, whereas the server-side CallOptions only exposes a constructor with no visible property accessors or setters. This suggests a divergence in how call configuration is handled or exposed. — Align the server-side CallOptions to match the client-side API by adding getter/setter methods for consistency, or document why the server-side options are immutable/constructor-only. (signatures: grpc.client.CallOptions.set_deadline(deadline: Instant) | grpc.client.CallOptions.deadline(): Instant | grpc.server.CallOptions.new(): Self)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent parameter naming and typing for SendStream.send. Client uses `msg` typed as `&dyn SendMessage`, while server uses `item` typed as `ResponseStreamItem`. While the types differ due to context (request vs response), the parameter name inconsistency (`msg` vs `item`) is confusing for developers switching contexts. · ×1

Inconsistent parameter naming and typing for SendStream.send. Client uses `msg` typed as `&dyn SendMessage`, while server uses `item` typed as `ResponseStreamItem`. While the types differ due to context (request vs response), the parameter name inconsistency (`msg` vs `item`) is confusing for developers switching contexts. — Standardize the parameter name to `message` or `msg` across both client and server SendStream implementations. (signatures: grpc.client.SendStream.send(msg: &dyn SendMessage, options: SendOptions): Result | grpc.server.SendStream.send(item: ResponseStreamItem, options: SendOptions): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent method naming for receiving messages. Client uses `recv`, while server uses `next`. These perform the same logical operation (advancing the stream and retrieving the next message) but have different names and return types (`ResponseStreamItem` vs `Result`). · ×1

Inconsistent method naming for receiving messages. Client uses `recv`, while server uses `next`. These perform the same logical operation (advancing the stream and retrieving the next message) but have different names and return types (`ResponseStreamItem` vs `Result`). — Unify the method name to `next` or `recv` across both client and server streams. Align return types to a common `ResponseStreamItem` or `Result` wrapper. (signatures: grpc.client.RecvStream.recv(msg: &mut dyn RecvMessage): ResponseStreamItem | grpc.server.RecvStream.next(msg: &mut dyn RecvMessage): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent parameter naming in dynamic send streams. Client uses `msg`, server uses `item`. Same issue as the non-dynamic streams. · ×1

Inconsistent parameter naming in dynamic send streams. Client uses `msg`, server uses `item`. Same issue as the non-dynamic streams. — Standardize the parameter name to `message` or `msg` across both client and server DynSendStream implementations. (signatures: grpc.client.DynSendStream.dyn_send(msg: &dyn SendMessage, options: SendOptions): Result | grpc.server.DynSendStream.dyn_send(item: ResponseStreamItem, options: SendOptions): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent method naming in dynamic receive streams. Client uses `dyn_recv`, server uses `dyn_next`. This mirrors the inconsistency in the non-dynamic streams. · ×1

Inconsistent method naming in dynamic receive streams. Client uses `dyn_recv`, server uses `dyn_next`. This mirrors the inconsistency in the non-dynamic streams. — Unify the method name to `dyn_next` or `dyn_recv` across both client and server dynamic streams. (signatures: grpc.client.DynRecvStream.dyn_recv(msg: &mut dyn RecvMessage): ResponseStreamItem | grpc.server.DynRecvStream.dyn_next(msg: &mut dyn RecvMessage): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Duplicate WorkScheduler types in different modules. Both `grpc.client.name_resolution.WorkScheduler` and `grpc.client.load_balancing.WorkScheduler` have the same signature `schedule_work(data · ×1

Duplicate WorkScheduler types in different modules. Both `grpc.client.name_resolution.WorkScheduler` and `grpc.client.load_balancing.WorkScheduler` have the same signature `schedule_work(data: WorkData)`. It is unclear if these are distinct interfaces or if one is a duplicate/refactor artifact. — Consolidate into a single `WorkScheduler` trait/type in a common module (e.g., `grpc.core` or `grpc.client`) to avoid duplication and confusion. (signatures: grpc.client.name_resolution.WorkScheduler.schedule_work(data: WorkData) | grpc.client.load_balancing.WorkScheduler.schedule_work(data: WorkData))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent method naming and signatures for ChannelController. The name resolution controller uses `update` with a `ResolverUpdate`, while the load balancing controller uses `update_picker` with an `LbState`. These are likely part of the same controller interface but are split or named inconsistently. · ×1

Inconsistent method naming and signatures for ChannelController. The name resolution controller uses `update` with a `ResolverUpdate`, while the load balancing controller uses `update_picker` with an `LbState`. These are likely part of the same controller interface but are split or named inconsistently. — Unify the ChannelController interface to have consistent method names (e.g., `update_state` or `update`) and ensure the update types are compatible or clearly distinct in purpose. (signatures: grpc.client.name_resolution.ChannelController.update(update: ResolverUpdate): Result | grpc.client.load_balancing.ChannelController.update_picker(update: LbState))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent interceptor signatures. Client interceptors return streams `(SendStream, RecvStream)`, while server interceptors return `Trailers` and take explicit `tx`/`rx` streams. This makes it difficult to write shared interceptor logic or understand the flow. · ×1

Inconsistent interceptor signatures. Client interceptors return streams `(SendStream, RecvStream)`, while server interceptors return `Trailers` and take explicit `tx`/`rx` streams. This makes it difficult to write shared interceptor logic or understand the flow. — Align the interceptor signatures. If possible, make server interceptors return a result containing the trailers and streams, or adjust client interceptors to follow a similar pattern to server interceptors for consistency. (signatures: grpc.client.interceptor.Intercept.intercept(headers: RequestHeaders, options: CallOptions, next: I): (SendStream, RecvStream) | grpc.server.interceptor.Intercept.intercept(headers: RequestHeaders, options: CallOptions, tx: &mut impl SendStream, rx: impl RecvStream, next: &impl Handle): Trailers)

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1

ClassTooLong: AdsWorker xds-client/src/client/worker.rs:547 — ClassTooLong — 506 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 18 methods, 2 blocks, lines 547-1451. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 106 over it, 1.27× 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.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1

MethodTooLong: BenchmarkClient.start grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:73 — MethodTooLong — start runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling clique · ×1

Change coupling clique: REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED tonic-build/src/lib.rs — 5 files — `tonic-build/src/lib.rs`, `tonic-health/src/lib.rs`, `tonic-reflection/src/lib.rs`, `tonic-types/src/lib.rs`, `tonic-web/src/lib.rs` — all change together with no explicit dependency: a fully-connected co-change clique, not 10 separate couplings. They share one concern (thin parallel siblings over a common abstraction), so extract the shared part into ONE unit and the whole clique's coupling clears at once — you do not need to break each pair individually.

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 29 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 29 shared lines) tonic-build/src/server.rs:470 — tonic-build/src/server.rs:470-519 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:529-586 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:595-644 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:654-712 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 29 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them 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 · Edited copy of a member (70 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (70 corresponding lines) tonic-reflection/src/server/v1.rs:53 — tonic-reflection/src/server/v1.rs:53-122 | tonic-reflection/src/server/v1alpha.rs:53-122 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 70 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (35 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (35 corresponding lines) grpc-protobuf/src/server/server_streaming.rs:91 — grpc-protobuf/src/server/server_streaming.rs:91-129 | grpc-protobuf/src/server/unary.rs:94-149 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 35 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) tonic-build/src/client.rs:251 — tonic-build/src/client.rs:251-274 | tonic-build/src/client.rs:282-305 | tonic-build/src/client.rs:313-336 | tonic-build/src/client.rs:344-367 — 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 (43 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (43 lines × 2) tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:782 — tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:782-824 | tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:888-930 — 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 (31 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) grpc-protobuf/src/server/server_streaming.rs:94 — grpc-protobuf/src/server/server_streaming.rs:94-124 | grpc-protobuf/src/server/unary.rs:100-130 — 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 (29 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:834 — tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:834-862 | tonic-prost-build/src/lib.rs:936-964 — 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 (22–23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22–23 lines × 2) grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:350 — grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:350-372 | grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:398-419 — 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 (20 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) tonic-build/src/server.rs:492 — tonic-build/src/server.rs:492-511 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:559-578 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:617-636 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:685-704 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) tonic/src/transport/server/incoming.rs:196 — tonic/src/transport/server/incoming.rs:196-213 | tonic/src/transport/server/incoming.rs:219-236 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) tonic-reflection/src/server/v1.rs:107 — tonic-reflection/src/server/v1.rs:107-122 | tonic-reflection/src/server/v1alpha.rs:107-122 — 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 (11–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–15 lines × 2) grpc-protobuf/src/server/client_streaming.rs:96 — grpc-protobuf/src/server/client_streaming.rs:96-106 | grpc-protobuf/src/server/unary.rs:135-149 — 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 (13–14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:247 — grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs:247-260 | grpc-benchmark/src/server.rs:145-157 — 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 (14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) tonic/src/server/grpc.rs:270 — tonic/src/server/grpc.rs:270-283 | tonic/src/server/grpc.rs:344-357 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) tonic-reflection/src/server/v1.rs:54 — tonic-reflection/src/server/v1.rs:54-66 | tonic-reflection/src/server/v1alpha.rs:54-66 — 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 (11–12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) grpc/src/client/load_balancing/child_manager.rs:258 — grpc/src/client/load_balancing/child_manager.rs:258-268 | grpc/src/client/load_balancing/child_manager.rs:290-301 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 2) tonic-build/src/client.rs:56 — tonic-build/src/client.rs:56-63 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:70-79 — 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 × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) tonic-build/src/server.rs:477 — tonic-build/src/server.rs:477-485 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:543-551 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:601-609 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:668-676 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) tonic-build/src/client.rs:254 — tonic-build/src/client.rs:254-261 | tonic-build/src/client.rs:285-292 | tonic-build/src/client.rs:316-323 | tonic-build/src/client.rs:347-354 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) tonic-build/src/server.rs:471 — tonic-build/src/server.rs:471-475 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:530-534 | tonic-build/src/server.rs:655-659 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) tonic-build/src/client.rs:327 — tonic-build/src/client.rs:327-331 | tonic-build/src/client.rs:358-362 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 10) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 10) tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs:142 — tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs:142-149 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/debug_info.rs:65-72 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/error_info.rs:81-88 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/help.rs:123-130 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/loc_message.rs:69-76 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/prec_failure.rs:147-154 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/quota_failure.rs:160-167 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/request_info.rs:68-75 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/resource_info.rs:81-88 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/retry_info.rs:80-87 — before extracting anything, compare `tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs` and `tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/quota_failure.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 31 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 10) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 10) tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs:160 — tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs:160-165 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/debug_info.rs:83-88 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/error_info.rs:99-104 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/help.rs:141-146 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/loc_message.rs:87-92 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/prec_failure.rs:165-170 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/quota_failure.rs:178-183 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/request_info.rs:86-91 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/resource_info.rs:99-104 | tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/retry_info.rs:98-103 — before extracting anything, compare `tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/bad_request.rs` and `tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/quota_failure.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 31 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

M1 · Documentation (README) · README may be stale · ×1

README may be stale — 294 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

Minor — 17 finding(s)

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×3

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 13 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: grpc-xds/src/resource/route.rs, grpc-xds/src/resource/endpoint.rs, grpc-xds/src/resource/cluster.rs, xds-client/src/codec/prost.rs, grpc-xds/src/resource/listener.rs, tonic-xds/src/xds/endpoint_manager.rs, xds-client/src/metrics.rs, xds-client/src/resource/mod.rs (+5 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 6 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: grpc-benchmark/src/client.rs, grpc-benchmark/src/server.rs, grpc-benchmark/src/worker.rs, grpc/src/client/transport/http_connect/mod.rs, grpc/src/credentials/rustls/tls_stream.rs, grpc-benchmark/src/main.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #3 — If anonymized user #3 becomes unavailable, 3 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: grpc/src/codec/compression/gzip.rs, grpc/src/codec/compression/registry.rs, grpc/src/codec/compression.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 3 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (26 single-owned of 248 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 248 of the 291 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #4 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #5 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #6 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above.

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×1

Documentation: no project overview tonic/benches-disabled/README.md — The document names 'Criterion benchmarks' as its content, giving no indication of what Tonic does or why it is being benchmarked. State the project's purpose (benchmarking request/response construction performance) and how to run benchmarks.

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 — 2 of 21 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 8.1/10. The most over is `grpc` (29297 LoC, 217 public types across 21 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.

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

REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1

Further orphaned files (smaller) — 18 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than raised one row each — most significant first: tonic-build/src/manual.rs, tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/quota_failure.rs, tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/prec_failure.rs, tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/help.rs, tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/retry_info.rs, tonic/src/transport/channel/service/user_agent.rs, tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/error_info.rs, tonic-types/src/richer_error/std_messages/resource_info.rs (and 10 more) (19 orphaned of 248 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 248 of the 291 production source files in this repository met that bar). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 5/9 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `codegen`, `grpc`, `grpc-benchmark`, `xds-client`.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1

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

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-0671c3c34f0842f6a9b018696245bfa4/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	11	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-0671c3c34f0842f6a9b018696245bfa4/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	8	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 .	80	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	0	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	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	—

Run 01a0eacb-89c4-7902-af45-251aeacb02d1 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Grpc/grpc-Rust

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 93% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 94% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 65% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 51% · Adequate · gated by D13 ·

At a glance — Security · 60% · Adequate · gated by D28, D36 ·

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts