Public report — grpc-swift, published 1 Oct 2026.
Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches,
dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase surveyMeasured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.18 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_4ed655be6e784983b7342e128d1a0e11
Filed 1 October 2026, 09:07 UTC
Public
Medium · 38,792 LoC · 3 projects · rebuild ~0.4 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (41%)
Findings by grade
34 critical129 serious32 minor40 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
1 October 2026, 09:02 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify,
approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The
standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said
here so the number is checked rather than believed.
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
166findings with an exact file:lineof 195 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
39/118dimensions across the health lenses38792 LoC · 3 projects — wide & deep
This system presents a fragile operational standing with an overall health score of 49%. While the underlying code is well-structured and architecturally sound, the system lacks the operational safeguards necessary for reliable, secure delivery. For the business, this means that while the asset is relatively small and inexpensive to rebuild, its current state poses significant risks to release stability and security compliance. The value tied up here is modest, requiring only about 0.4 person-years to reconstruct, yet the cost of failure in its current configuration could far exceed that rebuild effort due to potential outages or security breaches.
The primary risk lies in operational readiness. With a score of 41%, the system is not sufficiently tested, observable, or secure to be safely operated at scale. This gap exposes the business to higher defect rates, longer incident resolution times, and increased security exposure. Without robust testing and monitoring, changes are more likely to introduce regressions, and issues are harder to detect before they impact users. This is the most critical area to address, as it directly affects the reliability and trustworthiness of the product.
A secondary concern is security hygiene. The current security posture is weak, with confirmed leaked secrets and no automated static analysis in the build pipeline. This leaves the system vulnerable to common attacks and makes it difficult to ensure that new code does not introduce vulnerabilities. The presence of leaked credentials, such as certificates and private keys, is a severe risk that requires immediate attention to prevent unauthorized access or data breaches.
On the positive side, the codebase is clean and maintainable, with high scores in code health and architecture. This means that when issues are addressed, the team can work efficiently without being bogged down by technical debt. The first action should be to integrate a static analysis tool into the CI pipeline to catch security regressions early. This is a low-effort, high-impact change that will significantly improve the system's security posture and provide a foundation for further improvements.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
D12 · No Package.resolved committed (FuzzTesting/Package.swift)
D12 · No Package.resolved committed (Performance/QPSBenchmark/Package.swift)
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.
0.7× (at 49% 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 ~0.4 person-years of build effort (about ~€61,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 41% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.4 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 41%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ 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: Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
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.)
12 modules, 13 dependencies. 1 dependency cycle across 5 modules, marked above the diagonal.
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.
Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself
4→8 GRPCInteroperabilityTestModels depends on GRPCcycle✕
Type pairs
109 distinct (type in GRPCInteroperabilityTestModels → type in GRPC) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
62 distinct (type in GRPCReflectionService → type in GRPC) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
Performance~QPSBenchmark~QPSBenchmark uses GRPCInteroperabilityTestModels. Changing GRPCInteroperabilityTestModels can break Performance~QPSBenchmark~QPSBenchmark, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
7→6 Performance~QPSBenchmark~QPSBenchmark depends on Performance~QPSBenchmark~BenchmarkUtils✕
Type pairs
3 distinct (type in Performance~QPSBenchmark~QPSBenchmark → type in Performance~QPSBenchmark~BenchmarkUtils) references.
Performance~QPSBenchmark~QPSBenchmark uses Performance~QPSBenchmark~BenchmarkUtils. Changing Performance~QPSBenchmark~BenchmarkUtils can break Performance~QPSBenchmark~QPSBenchmark, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
7→8 Performance~QPSBenchmark~QPSBenchmark depends on GRPCcycle✕
Type pairs
53 distinct (type in Performance~QPSBenchmark~QPSBenchmark → type in GRPC) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation uses GRPCInteroperabilityTestModels. Changing GRPCInteroperabilityTestModels can break GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
9→8 GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation depends on GRPC✕
Type pairs
45 distinct (type in GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation → type in GRPC) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures
18
High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection
9
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, integrate automated security scanning into the CI pipeline to block regressions and immediately resolve the two identified secret leaks. Second, implement a draft release or approval gate to prevent bad builds from reaching users, while simultaneously fixing the nine flaky tests to ensure reliable validation. Finally, maintain a changelog to clearly document what ships in each release.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
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.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (swift-otel with swift-distributed-tracing) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your Vapor/Hummingbird router) for operability.
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 — 34
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 — 129
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 — 32
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 40
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 39 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 39 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 166 of 195 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
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 — 19 SwiftPM declaration(s) across 3 `Package.swift` and 0 committed pin(s) were read for PINNING discipline (2 defect(s) reported), but the outdated signal comes from listing each declared repository's release tags rather than from a registry, and none of them resolved to a version to compare, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `Sources/GRPC/Compression/Zlib.swift` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — 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 dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
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 reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and this repository defines its own container in Sources/GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation/TestServiceProvider.swift, whose lifetimes are not modelled yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
PF3 Async & latency 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. Those languages colour their functions async, so blocking inside them is the same defect this card counts elsewhere, but their blocking vocabulary is not modelled yet. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the code is free of it.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript and Java source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript or Java was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript and Java source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript or Java was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and Java, Kotlin and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded, no Java, Kotlin or Scala was found, and this repository's C, Python, Ruby, Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and Java and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no Java or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check 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.
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. X7 measured the part of this repository it reads (C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java and Kotlin), and its Swift source is outside the check's reach, so the card covers only part of the product. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the unread source is free of silent defaults.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
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").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
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.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
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.
Resolve the 1 GeneratorOptions.init (cyclomatic 27) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Options.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 GRPCClientChannelHandler.write (cyclomatic 22) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with GRPCClientChannelHandler.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 GRPCIdleHandler.perform (cyclomatic 19) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with GRPCIdleHandler.swift. — 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.
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.
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 GeneratorOptions.init (cognitive 55) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Options.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 GRPCClientChannelHandler.write (cognitive 26) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with GRPCClientChannelHandler.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CoalescingLengthPrefixedMessageWriter.next (cognitive 23) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with CoalescingLengthPrefixedMessageWriter.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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 Classes9.3 / 10Stronggated by 8 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.
Resolve the 5 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with HTTP2ToRawGRPCStateMachine.swift, ConnectionManager.swift, GRPCAsyncServerHandler.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Generator.swift, ClientTransport.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ConnectionManager.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
72 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 3 of the 75 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.
+ 32 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 9 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift, GRPCAsyncServerHandler.swift, BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift (3), ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift (2), ReflectionServiceV1.swift (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AsyncBenchmarkServiceImpl.swift, NIOWorkerServiceImpl.swift, BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
3 production modules (SwiftPM), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 8 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with TestServiceAsyncProvider.swift, TestServiceProvider.swift, AsyncBenchmarkServiceImpl.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
34 test methods: 34 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
0 skipped, 14 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 34 tests (1 harness-style project(s) excluded from the assertion penalty).
No direct assertions: testOptionsPreflightAllowAllOrigins · ×14Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:81
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.
Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.
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.
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 11 SwiftPM package(s) use a banned license. SwiftPM has no package registry, so each package's licence is the one its repository declares: 0 of them read from the licence file the repository carries at the revision Package.resolved pins, and 11 — unpinned, or whose licence file could not be read or named — from api.deps.dev, which reports the licence the repository declares today. Graded: every package a committed Package.resolved pins, direct and transitive, and every declared dependency none pins. 17 of them are declared by a manifest that commits no Package.resolved (a library, whose resolution is its consumer's), so their own dependencies are resolved by whoever builds it and are not in this verdict.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Whether 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.
2 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Sources/GRPC/ConnectionManager.swift. Counted over 141 of the 208 production source files in this repository: 63 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 4 have no attributable history left to measure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
23 deducted task-comment markers across 38792 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.
Resolve the 19 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with GRPCAsyncSequenceProducerDelegate.swift (2), EventLoopFuture+Assertions.swift (2), AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with WebCORSHandler.swift, StreamEvent.swift, ServerErrorDelegate.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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.
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.
The repository's root README and its sibling gRPC Swift projects all provide clear project descriptions (gRPC Swift code generator/runtime libraries for Swift), versioning notes, security/compatibility guidance, a CONTRIBUTING.md guide, and links to the public API reference. The internal documentation is well organized into a dedicated Public API document covering module boundaries, acceptable use of the API, conformance rules, and an async/await proposal with a detailed tutorial; this is the single most comprehensive document in the set. All visible documents are READMEs for their own directories (FuzzTesting/, Protos/, Examples/) rather than the repository root, so each one only addresses its own tier. The documentation is comprehensive for a gRPC Swift project: the READMEs cover installation, usage, contribution, and licensing (quick-start, plugin, keepalive), while architecture/design docs explain client/server interceptors, TLS backends/platform compatibility, and service lifecycle; each document is well-structured with clear headings and examples. The content is clipped mid-sentence in several files but no section is omitted from the outline, so any named section is present and not flagged as missing.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions · ×2README.md
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
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.
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.
1 of 3 build units (SwiftPM) 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.
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.
15 finding(s): 0 critical, 15 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 14 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED (5), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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.
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).
9 finding(s): 0 critical, 8 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 6 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `Performance/allocations/test-utils.sh` (line 35), `scripts/format.sh` (lines 17–94) — 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
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 6 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
22 of 145 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionService.swift. Counted over 145 of the 208 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Orphaned files with no living knowledge
What to do
Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. 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.
Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with ConnectionPool.swift. — 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no 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).
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
README claims gRPC Swift 2 while the repository is gRPC Swift 1 — searched for: `gRPC Swift 2`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README claims gRPC Swift 2 while the repository is gRPC Swift 1.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (swift-otel with swift-distributed-tracing) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your Vapor/Hummingbird router) for operability.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 5278 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
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.
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.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
What to do
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 17 use(s) across 39,562 production line(s) (~0.4/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Swift: on hot paths, reserveCapacity before appending, use ContiguousArray for class-element arrays, work in place with withUnsafeBufferPointer/withUnsafeTemporaryAllocation, and make large values ~Copyable with borrowing/consuming parameters.
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.
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 — 75 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 — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No function in this Python code is served by a threaded web framework (a Flask, Bottle or FastAPI route, a Django or Pyramid view), so no module is shared between request threads. No Swift request handler (a Vapor, Hummingbird, Kitura, Swifter or Perfect route handler, as a method or a registered closure) is declared, so no state is shared between request threads.
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 — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
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.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 19 SwiftPM declaration(s) across 3 `Package.swift` and 0 committed pin(s) were read for PINNING discipline (2 defect(s) reported), but the outdated signal comes from listing each declared repository's release tags rather than from a registry, and none of them resolved to a version to compare, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. 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 — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved — not scanned yet).
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 1 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
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 — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved — not scanned yet).
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in . produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — 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 — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Python, Ruby, Swift source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
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 — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`) 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 applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `Benchmark("…")` in a file importing package-benchmark, or package-benchmark in Package.swift, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Sync-over-async was not assessed: this repository's async code is written in Swift, whose blocking calls this check does not model yet. That is a gap in the analyzer's language reach, not a finding about your code.
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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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 — 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
X25 Inert configuration knob — 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
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — 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
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — 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
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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 — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
TodoComment Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:196— // TODO: Support TLS if requested. — 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 Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSServerImpl.swift:54— // TODO: Support TLS if requested. — 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 Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSClientImpl.swift:185— // TODO: Support TLS if requested. — 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 Sources/GRPC/PlatformSupport.swift:111— // TODO: Revisit the handling of NIO/NIOTS once https://github.com/apple/swift-nio/issues/796
TodoComment Sources/GRPC/LengthPrefixedMessageReader.swift:203— // TODO: If compression is enabled and we store the buffer slices then we can feed the slices — 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 Sources/GRPC/GRPCWebToHTTP2ServerCodec.swift:276— // TODO: Use API provided by https://github.com/apple/swift-nio-http2/issues/254 to avoid the
TodoComment Sources/GRPC/GRPCServerPipelineConfigurator.swift:124— // TODO: provide user configuration for header normalization. — 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 Sources/GRPC/GRPCIdleHandlerStateMachine.swift:424— // TODO: we should ratchet down the last initiated stream after 1-RTT. — 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 Sources/GRPC/GRPCClientStateMachine.swift:658— // TODO: make header normalization user-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 Sources/GRPC/GRPCClientChannelHandler.swift:339— // TODO: synthesise a more precise `GRPCStatus` from RST_STREAM frames in accordance — 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 Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncSequenceProducerDelegate.swift:23— // TODO: this method will have to be implemented when we add support for backpressure. — 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 Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncSequenceProducerDelegate.swift:27— // TODO: this method will have to be implemented when we add support for backpressure. — 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 Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncBidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:167— // TODO: when we support backpressure we will need to stop ignoring the return value. — 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 Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/Call+AsyncRequestStreamWriter.swift:34— // TODO: be smarter about inserting flushes. — 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 Sources/GRPC/ConnectionPool/ConnectionPool.swift:477— // TODO: make this cheaper by storing and incrementally updating the number of idle connections — 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 Tests/GRPCTests/ServerWebTests.swift:30— // TODO: Add tests for application/grpc-web as well. — 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 Tests/GRPCTests/EventLoopFuture+Assertions.swift:97— // TODO: Replace with `always` once https://github.com/apple/swift-nio/pull/981 is released.
TodoComment Tests/GRPCTests/EventLoopFuture+Assertions.swift:103— // TODO: Replace with `always` once https://github.com/apple/swift-nio/pull/981 is released.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:205— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:205-216 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSClientImpl.swift:194-205 — before extracting anything, compare `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift` and `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSClientImpl.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:205` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncServerHandler.swift:68— Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncServerHandler.swift:68-79 | Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncServerHandler.swift:123-134 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncServerHandler.swift:68` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:82— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:82-93 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:79-90 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 120 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:82` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:166— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:166-177 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:158-169 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 101 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:166` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncBenchmarkServiceImpl.swift:109— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncBenchmarkServiceImpl.swift:109-120 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOBenchmarkServiceImpl.swift:117-128 — 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 (12 lines × 2) Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:646— Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:646-657 | Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/StreamingType.swift:26-37 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift:322— Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift:322-333 | Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ServerInterceptorPipeline.swift:213-224 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ServerInterceptorPipeline.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:80— Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:80-91 | Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift:83-94 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift` and `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `extensionRequest` to `Grpc_Reflection_V1_ExtensionRequest` in one and `Grpc_Reflection_V1alpha_ExtensionRequest` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Sources/GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation/TestServiceAsyncProvider.swift:42— Sources/GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation/TestServiceAsyncProvider.swift:42-53 | Sources/GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation/TestServiceProvider.swift:43-54 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:38— Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:38-44 | Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:120-126 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:38` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:77— Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:77-83 | Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ServerStreamingCall.swift:72-78 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ServerStreamingCall.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 85% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:85— Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:85-91 | Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ClientStreamingCall.swift:86-92 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ClientStreamingCall.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:125— Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:125-131 | Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ClientStreamingCall.swift:126-132 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ClientStreamingCall.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift:185— Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift:185-191 | Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ServerInterceptorPipeline.swift:154-160 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ServerInterceptorPipeline.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift:497— Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift:497-503 | Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ServerInterceptorPipeline.swift:291-297 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ServerInterceptorPipeline.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:45— Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:45-51 | Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift:48-54 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift` and `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `request` to `Grpc_Reflection_V1_ServerReflectionRequest` in one and `Grpc_Reflection_V1alpha_ServerReflectionRequest` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:200— Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:200-206 | Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift:206-212 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift` and `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 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.
Low cohesion: TestServiceAsyncProvider (LCOM4 7) Sources/GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation/TestServiceAsyncProvider.swift:24— TestServiceAsyncProvider's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: TestServiceProvider (LCOM4 7) Sources/GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation/TestServiceProvider.swift:26— TestServiceProvider's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: AsyncBenchmarkServiceImpl (LCOM4 5) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncBenchmarkServiceImpl.swift:22— AsyncBenchmarkServiceImpl's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: NIOBenchmarkServiceImpl (LCOM4 5) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOBenchmarkServiceImpl.swift:22— NIOBenchmarkServiceImpl's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: AsyncWorkerServiceImpl (LCOM4 4) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncWorkerServiceImpl.swift:20— AsyncWorkerServiceImpl's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: NIOWorkerServiceImpl (LCOM4 4) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOWorkerServiceImpl.swift:21— NIOWorkerServiceImpl's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: EchoAsyncProvider (LCOM4 4) Examples/v1/Echo/Implementation/EchoAsyncProvider.swift:19— EchoAsyncProvider's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: EchoProvider (LCOM4 4) Examples/v1/Echo/Implementation/EchoProvider.swift:21— EchoProvider's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
FileTooLong: GRPC/HTTP2ToRawGRPCStateMachine.swift Sources/GRPC/HTTP2ToRawGRPCStateMachine.swift— FileTooLong — 741 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 241 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: GRPC/ConnectionManager.swift Sources/GRPC/ConnectionManager.swift— FileTooLong — 645 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 80% of them inside a single declaration: ConnectionManager (27-998). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 145 over it, 1.29× 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: AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncServerHandler.swift Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncServerHandler.swift— FileTooLong — 594 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 65% of them inside a single declaration: AsyncServerHandler (168-761). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 94 over it, 1.19× 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: ConnectionPool/ConnectionPool.swift Sources/GRPC/ConnectionPool/ConnectionPool.swift— FileTooLong — 561 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 62% of them inside a single declaration: ConnectionPool (24-682). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 61 over it, 1.12× 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: Interceptor/ClientTransport.swift Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientTransport.swift— FileTooLong — 511 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 11 over it, 1.02× 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.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncBenchmarkServiceImpl.swift:90— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncBenchmarkServiceImpl.swift:90-103 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOBenchmarkServiceImpl.swift:98-111 — 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 (14 lines × 2) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOWorkerServiceImpl.swift:136— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOWorkerServiceImpl.swift:136-149 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOWorkerServiceImpl.swift:261-274 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOWorkerServiceImpl.swift:136` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `context` to `StreamingResponseCallContext<Grpc_Testing_ServerStatus>` in one and `StreamingResponseCallContext<Grpc_Testing_ClientStatus>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:165— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:165-178 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:162-175 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 120 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:165` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncPingPongRequestMaker.swift:45— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncPingPongRequestMaker.swift:45-58 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOPingPongRequestMaker.swift:42-55 — 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 (14 lines × 2) Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:53— Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:53-66 | Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift:56-69 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift` and `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `request` to `Grpc_Reflection_V1_ServerReflectionRequest` in one and `Grpc_Reflection_V1alpha_ServerReflectionRequest` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSServerImpl.swift:73— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSServerImpl.swift:73-83 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSServerImpl.swift:71-81 — 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) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncWorkerServiceImpl.swift:153— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncWorkerServiceImpl.swift:153-163 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncWorkerServiceImpl.swift:281-291 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncWorkerServiceImpl.swift:153` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/AsyncServerHandler/ServerHandlerStateMachine/ServerHandlerStateMachine.swift:175— Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/AsyncServerHandler/ServerHandlerStateMachine/ServerHandlerStateMachine.swift:175-185 | Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/AsyncServerHandler/ServerInterceptorStateMachine/ServerInterceptorStateMachine.swift:194-204 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/AsyncServerHandler/ServerHandlerStateMachine/ServerHandlerStateMachine.swift:175` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:68— Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:68-78 | Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:151-161 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:68` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:68— Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:68-78 | Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift:71-81 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift` and `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `request` to `Grpc_Reflection_V1_ServerReflectionRequest` in one and `Grpc_Reflection_V1alpha_ServerReflectionRequest` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSServerImpl.swift:44— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSServerImpl.swift:44-53 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSServerImpl.swift:40-49 — 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 (10 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/AsyncServerHandler/ServerHandlerStateMachine/ServerHandlerStateMachine.swift:186— Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/AsyncServerHandler/ServerHandlerStateMachine/ServerHandlerStateMachine.swift:186-195 | Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/AsyncServerHandler/ServerInterceptorStateMachine/ServerInterceptorStateMachine.swift:197-206 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/AsyncServerHandler/ServerHandlerStateMachine/ServerHandlerStateMachine.swift:186` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCClient+AsyncAwaitSupport.swift:241— Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCClient+AsyncAwaitSupport.swift:241-250 | Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCClient+AsyncAwaitSupport.swift:321-330 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCClient+AsyncAwaitSupport.swift:241` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorContext.swift:59— Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorContext.swift:59-68 | Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ServerInterceptorContext.swift:82-91 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorContext.swift:76` calls `assertInEventLoop` and `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ServerInterceptorContext.swift:99` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:166— Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:166-175 | Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift:170-179 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift` and `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `messageResponse` to `Grpc_Reflection_V1_ServerReflectionResponse.OneOf_MessageResponse` in one and `Grpc_Reflection_V1alpha_ServerReflectionResponse.OneOf_MessageResponse` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
FixmeComment Sources/GRPC/WebCORSHandler.swift:166— //! FIXME: Check whether we can let browsers keep connections alive. It's not possible — 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 Sources/GRPC/StreamEvent.swift:22— //! FIXME: Also support errors in this type, to propagate them to the event handler. — 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 Sources/GRPC/ServerErrorDelegate.swift:22— //! FIXME: Provide more context about where the error was thrown, i.e. using `GRPCError`. — 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 Sources/GRPC/GRPCTLSConfiguration.swift:123— // FIXME: lazily set the value on the backend when applying the options. — 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.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncBidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:121— Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncBidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:121-129 | Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncClientStreamingCall.swift:105-113 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncBidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:121` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncBidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:130` calls `finish` and `Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncClientStreamingCall.swift:114` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientTransportFactory.swift:147— Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientTransportFactory.swift:147-155 | Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientTransportFactory.swift:229-237 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientTransportFactory.swift:147` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Examples/v1/HelloWorld/Server/GreeterProvider.swift:24— Examples/v1/HelloWorld/Server/GreeterProvider.swift:24-32 | Examples/v1/ReflectionService/GreeterProvider.swift:24-32 — before extracting anything, compare `Examples/v1/HelloWorld/Server/GreeterProvider.swift` and `Examples/v1/ReflectionService/GreeterProvider.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Examples/v1/RouteGuide/Client/RouteGuideClient.swift:24— Examples/v1/RouteGuide/Client/RouteGuideClient.swift:24-32 | Examples/v1/RouteGuide/Server/RouteGuideServer.swift:26-34 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Examples/v1/RouteGuide/Client/RouteGuideClient.swift:24` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCClient+AsyncAwaitSupport.swift:87— Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCClient+AsyncAwaitSupport.swift:87-94 | Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCClient+AsyncAwaitSupport.swift:121-128 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCClient+AsyncAwaitSupport.swift:87` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:105— Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:105-112 | Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ClientStreamingCall.swift:106-113 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/BidirectionalStreamingCall.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ClientStreamingCall.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 3 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ServerStreamingCall.swift:80— Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ServerStreamingCall.swift:80-87 | Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/UnaryCall.swift:84-91 — 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 (13 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:219— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:219-231 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:213-225 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 107 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift:194— Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift:194-206 | Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ServerInterceptorPipeline.swift:163-176 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientInterceptorPipeline.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ServerInterceptorPipeline.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:31— Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:31-43 | Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift:33-46 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift` and `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
TooManyMethods: Generator Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator.swift:18— TooManyMethods — 53 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 23 over it, 1.77× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ClientTransport Sources/GRPC/Interceptor/ClientTransport.swift:37— TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:356— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:356-383 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:342-369 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:282-309 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:263-291 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:294— Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:294-318 | Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:320-346 | Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:348-375 | Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:377-403 — 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.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:314— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:314-339 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:297-322 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:314` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:314— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:314-339 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:296-321 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 107 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:314` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) Sources/GRPC/ServerCallContexts/ServerCallContext.swift:136— Sources/GRPC/ServerCallContexts/ServerCallContext.swift:136-150 | Sources/GRPC/ServerCallContexts/StreamingResponseCallContext.swift:34-48 | Sources/GRPC/ServerCallContexts/UnaryResponseCallContext.swift:54-68 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) Sources/GRPC/ServerCallContexts/ServerCallContext.swift:152— Sources/GRPC/ServerCallContexts/ServerCallContext.swift:152-166 | Sources/GRPC/ServerCallContexts/StreamingResponseCallContext.swift:50-64 | Sources/GRPC/ServerCallContexts/UnaryResponseCallContext.swift:70-84 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:203— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:203-217 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:202-216 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:219— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:219-233 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:218-232 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 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.
GeneratorOptions.init (cyclomatic 27) Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Options.swift:91— GeneratorOptions.init has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
GRPCClientChannelHandler.write (cyclomatic 22) Sources/GRPC/GRPCClientChannelHandler.swift:506— GRPCClientChannelHandler.write has cyclomatic complexity 22 (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.
GRPCIdleHandler.perform (cyclomatic 19) Sources/GRPC/GRPCIdleHandler.swift:131— GRPCIdleHandler.perform has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (FuzzTesting/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (FuzzTesting/Package.swift) — FuzzTesting/Package.swift declares 1 dependency and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· No Package.resolved committed (Performance/QPSBenchmark/Package.swift) · ×1
No Package.resolved committed (Performance/QPSBenchmark/Package.swift) — Performance/QPSBenchmark/Package.swift declares 6 dependencies and no `.library` product, so it is an APPLICATION — but no `Package.resolved` is committed beside it. Nothing records the versions a working build resolved to, so `swift build` re-resolves against whatever each dependency's git host serves today and two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Build once and commit the resulting `Package.resolved`. (A published LIBRARY correctly omits its resolution — SwiftPM ignores a library's `Package.resolved` when the package is consumed — which is why this is asked only of a package that ships no `.library` product.)
GeneratorOptions.init (cognitive 55) Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Options.swift:91— GeneratorOptions.init has cognitive complexity 55 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (48 pts), error handling 1 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 28). 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.
GRPCClientChannelHandler.write (cognitive 26) Sources/GRPC/GRPCClientChannelHandler.swift:506— GRPCClientChannelHandler.write has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (19 pts), if/else 1 (4 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 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. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
CoalescingLengthPrefixedMessageWriter.next (cognitive 23) Sources/GRPC/CoalescingLengthPrefixedMessageWriter.swift:111— CoalescingLengthPrefixedMessageWriter.next has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), error handling 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 12). 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.
ReadState.readMessages (cognitive 22) Sources/GRPC/ReadWriteStates.swift:155— ReadState.readMessages has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). 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.
GRPCIdleHandler.perform (cognitive 19) Sources/GRPC/GRPCIdleHandler.swift:131— GRPCIdleHandler.perform has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 5, match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
LengthPrefixedMessageReader.processNextState (cognitive 17) Sources/GRPC/LengthPrefixedMessageReader.swift:164— LengthPrefixedMessageReader.processNextState has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ClassTooLong: ConnectionManager Sources/GRPC/ConnectionManager.swift:26— ClassTooLong — 513 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 26 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 113 over it, 1.28× 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.
Change coupling: ConnectionPool.swift ↔ PooledChannel.swift Sources/GRPC/ConnectionPool/ConnectionPool.swift— `Sources/GRPC/ConnectionPool/ConnectionPool.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/ConnectionPool/PooledChannel.swift` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 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). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `6ee1ed29` Remove GRPCLogger (#1853); `ec5b3963` Add a minimum connections configuration to the ConnectionPool (#1822); `6ec9effb` Allow clients to shutdown gracefully (#1308) — run `git show` on any of them.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 32 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 32 shared lines) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:311— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:311-354 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:294-338 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:311-355 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:293-337 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 32 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.
Duplicated block (37 lines × 2) Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:113— Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:113-149 | Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift:117-153 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift` and `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:113` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `request` to `Grpc_Reflection_V1_ServerReflectionRequest` in one and `Grpc_Reflection_V1alpha_ServerReflectionRequest` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:139— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:139-169 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSClientImpl.swift:130-159 — before extracting anything, compare `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift` and `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSClientImpl.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:239— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:239-264 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:238-261 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:239` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:215— Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:215-239 | Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:247-271 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:215` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:272— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:272-292 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:241-261 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 101 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:272` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:327— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:327-346 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:310-329 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:327-346 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:309-328 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:92— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:92-111 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSClientImpl.swift:81-100 — before extracting anything, compare `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift` and `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSClientImpl.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (18–20 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/ConnectionManager.swift:792— Sources/GRPC/ConnectionManager.swift:792-811 | Sources/GRPC/ConnectionManager.swift:828-845 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/ConnectionManager.swift:792` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:368— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:368-383 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:354-369 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:294-309 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:276-291 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:368` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:188— Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:188-203 | Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSClientImpl.swift:177-192 — before extracting anything, compare `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift` and `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSClientImpl.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 79 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift:188` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:46— Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:46-61 | Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:130-144 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:46` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11–15 lines × 4) Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:300— Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:300-310 | Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:327-337 | Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:355-369 | Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:385-396 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:300` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:326` calls `printHandlerParameter` and `Sources/protoc-gen-grpc-swift/Generator-Client.swift:299` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:296— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:296-309 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:266-280 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 120 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:296` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:82— Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:82-95 | Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:163-175 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/_GRPCClientCodecHandler.swift:82` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:311— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:311-322 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:294-305 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:311-322 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:293-304 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:311` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 3) Sources/GRPC/ConnectionPool/PooledChannel.swift:85— Sources/GRPC/ConnectionPool/PooledChannel.swift:85-95 | Sources/GRPC/ConnectionPool/PooledChannel.swift:100-111 | Sources/GRPC/ConnectionPool/PooledChannel.swift:115-126 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/ConnectionPool/PooledChannel.swift:85` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:356— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:356-366 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:342-352 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:282-292 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:356` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/Call.swift:219— Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/Call.swift:219-228 | Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/Call.swift:238-246 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/Call.swift:219` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Sources/GRPC/ConnectionKeepalive.swift:75— Sources/GRPC/ConnectionKeepalive.swift:75-79 | Sources/GRPC/ConnectionKeepalive.swift:164-168 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Sources/GRPC/ConnectionKeepalive.swift:75` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncBidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:56— Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncBidirectionalStreamingCall.swift:56-60 | Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncClientStreamingCall.swift:46-50 | Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncServerStreamingCall.swift:53-57 | Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncUnaryCall.swift:44-48 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncServerHandler.swift:412— Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCAsyncServerHandler.swift:412-422 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:153-163 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:154-164 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:150-160 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:146-156 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:111— Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift:111-119 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift:112-120 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ServerStreamingServerHandler.swift:108-116 | Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/UnaryServerHandler.swift:104-112 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/BidirectionalStreamingServerHandler.swift` and `Sources/GRPC/CallHandlers/ClientStreamingServerHandler.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 10 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 161 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/Call.swift:181— Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/Call.swift:181-185 | Sources/GRPC/ClientCalls/ClientCall.swift:159-163 | Sources/GRPC/ClientConnection.swift:146-150 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:190— Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift:190-195 | Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift:196-201 — before extracting anything, compare `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1.swift` and `Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `request` to `Grpc_Reflection_V1_ServerReflectionRequest` in one and `Grpc_Reflection_V1alpha_ServerReflectionRequest` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Coverage not measured — Swift suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in . produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
No direct assertions: testOptionsPreflightAllowAllOrigins Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:81— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testOptionsPreflightOriginBased Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:98— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testOptionsPreflightCustom Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:115— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testOptionsPreflightAllowSomeOrigins Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:142— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testOptionsPreflightAllowNoHeaders Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:159— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testOptionsPreflightNoMaxAge Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:176— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testOptionsPreflightNegativeMaxAge Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:193— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testOptionsPreflightWithCredentials Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:210— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testOptionsPreflightWithDisallowedOrigin Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:227— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testRegularRequestWithWildcardOrigin Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:298— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testRegularRequestWithLimitedOrigin Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:311— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testRegularRequestWithNoOrigin Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:324— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testRegularRequestWithCredentials Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:337— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: testRegularRequestWithDisallowedOrigin Tests/GRPCTests/WebCORSHandlerTests.swift:350— No conventional assertion call was detected, and 14 of 18 tests in `GRPCTests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md— The 'Building' section is a shell command block but gives no install/build instructions for the repository root. Add installation/dependency requirements and build commands under the README's overview, or move the shell-block building content to a dedicated INSTALL.md.
Documentation: no usage examples README.md— The 'Running the benchmarks' section is a code block but gives no usage examples for the repository root. Add one or two short usage examples under the README's overview, such as how to run the fuzz-testing binaries.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 2 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Sources/GRPC/ConnectionManager.swift, Sources/GRPC/GRPCClientChannelHandler.swift. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. The recognised ADR directories in this tree were read — `Sources/GRPC/Docs.docc/Proposals` — and none of their files is a decision record (a README, index or template page does not count). What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 3 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 3.3/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (35452 LoC, 286 public types across 23 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· Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1
Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 22 of 145 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (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; 145 of the 208 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionService.swift, Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOWorkerServiceImpl.swift, Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncWorkerServiceImpl.swift, Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/NIO/NIOQPSClientImpl.swift, Performance/QPSBenchmark/Sources/QPSBenchmark/Runtime/Async/AsyncQPSClientImpl.swift, Sources/GRPCInteroperabilityTestsImplementation/TestServiceAsyncProvider.swift, Sources/GRPCReflectionService/Server/ReflectionServiceV1Alpha.swift, Sources/GRPC/AsyncAwaitSupport/GRPCChannel+AsyncAwaitSupport.swift (and 14 more). 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.
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.
README/code drift — README claims gRPC Swift 2 while the repository is gRPC Swift 1 — searched for: `gRPC Swift 2`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 5278 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
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.
No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
Dependency hygiene PARTLY measured — SwiftPM pinning read, dependency currency NOT established — This repository's SwiftPM dependencies were read for PINNING discipline: 19 declaration(s) across 3 `Package.swift` manifest(s), against 0 committed pin(s). 2 pinning defect(s) are reported as separate rows below. That is only PART of dependency hygiene, so this dimension is NOT SCORED: whether any of these packages has a newer release is the dependency-CURRENCY question, and no dependency here resolves to a VERSION to ask about — each is pinned to a branch or a revision, which tracks whatever that ref points at and therefore cannot be behind a release. A clean pinning pass is NOT an all-clear for these dependencies, and it is not a finding that they are all USED. Note also what is deliberately NOT charged here: a published LIBRARY correctly commits no `Package.resolved` (SwiftPM ignores a library's resolution when the package is consumed), and a `path:` dependency is a local directory and the tightest possible binding, not a floating one. Known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D30 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
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.
none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)
—
none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved — not scanned yet).
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
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. semgrep could not parse 1 file(s) — `Sources/GRPC/Compression/Zlib.swift` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)
—
none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved — not scanned yet).
0
—
Run 01a0f6b3-212a-75c4-9109-c841696f65d2 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 34 · Warnings: 129 · Recommendations: 31 · Info: 1 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 01-10-2026 @ 09:02 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.