Public report of gruz0/checkmvp, published 21 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 21 October 2026, 22:56 UTC · Survey ID cd_61f336318f6641f0a2820c373c908b67

gruz0/checkmvp

Measured 21 October 2026, 22:49 UTC, at code version 7fd7e74

Supply-chain provenance & signing: not measured

Supply-chain provenance & signing is not measured: Supply-chain provenance is not scored (this pipeline releases no artifact), but its build steps or GitHub Actions workflows have integrity defects, or nothing watches its dependency set for published advisories.

CAI score 45out of 100 At risk Down 1 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Domain Modelling 100 Exemplary Performance 100 Exemplary Architecture 86 Adequate Code Health 75 Strong Maturity 61 Adequate Accessibility 56 Adequate Production Readiness 48 Weak Security and Compliance 31 Weak

A small codebase: 19,445 lines of product code in 1 project, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Security and Compliance, 31

Findings by how serious they are

48 critical 235 serious 133 minor

6 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
21 October 2026, 22:49 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

A critical security finding is open, such as a library with a known critical vulnerability or a password or key found in the code. The score itself is unchanged, but its band shows At risk until the finding is fixed. See the Security and Compliance lens.

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

79of 83 dimensions measured by tools. The other 4 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
398of 416 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 18 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
83dimensions across 8 lenses, read from 19,445 lines of product code in 1 project.
Chapters

Executive summary

gruz0/checkmvp scores 45 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged.

The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Security and Compliance, which scores 31 and is rated Weak. Its Dependency Vulnerabilities dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Security and Compliance can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to protect endpoints by default-deny: a global authentication guard or middleware with explicit public opt-outs, or a guard on every route, plus named role/permission rules for what an authenticated caller may do and to resolve the 87 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness, and if Security and Compliance rose to 70, the score would rise from 45 to about 56.

48 findings are critical: 24 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, 11 in Static Analysis (SAST), seven in Forms & labels, four in Change Coupling, one in Keyboard semantics and one in Page structure.

Watchdog couldn't measure 4 dimensions in this code, among them Navigability, Web-Security Posture and Structured logging, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 19,445 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €29,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 75 Strong Architecture 86 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 61 Adequate, capped by Knowledge Freshness Production Readiness 48 Weak, capped by Test Coverage and Observability Security and Compliance 31 Weak, capped by Static Analysis (SAST), Dependency Vulnerabilities and Access Controls Domain Modelling 100 ★ Exemplary Accessibility 56 Adequate, capped by Keyboard semantics Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

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

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Security and Compliance 31 · counts for 45%Production Readiness 48 · counts for 25%Accessibility 56 · counts for 14%Maturity 61 · counts for 8%Code Health 75 · counts for 4%Architecture 86 · counts for 2%Domain Modelling 100 · counts for 1%Performance 100 · counts for 1%

If Security and Compliance rose from 31 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 45 to about 56.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 69%Tests 31%
New since the last survey: 34 findings

These 34 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026.

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

Fixed since the last survey: 89 findings

These 89 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical vulnerability: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
  • Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/events/subscribers/ContextAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 12 locations) src/ai/HypothesisGenerator.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (20 matched lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/ElevatorPitchesReport.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 3 locations) src/concept/events/subscribers/ConceptEvaluationSubscriber.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 3 locations) src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (19 matched lines × 2 locations) src/concept/domain/TargetAudience.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluator.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 3 locations) src/idea/events/subscribers/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) src/concept/domain/Persona.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 3 locations) src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ContentIdeasEvaluator.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ElevatorPitchesEvaluator.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/ProblemRequiresChanges.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) src/concept/adapters/EventBusInMemory.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/app/commands/Archive.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3 locations) src/idea/domain/ElevatorPitch.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (16 matched lines × 2 locations) src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/domain/ContentIdea.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 8 locations) src/app/agencies/page.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3 locations) REDACTED
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 12 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/page.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/not-found.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3 locations) src/concept/app/queries/GetConcept.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/domain/ProductName.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 31 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/ClarityScoreSection.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 14 locations) src/concept/events/subscribers/ConceptAnonymizationSubscriber.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3 locations) src/idea/domain/ContentIdea.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) src/concept/domain/Evaluation.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 4 locations) src/idea/domain/CompetitorAnalysis.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) REDACTED
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/LanguageAnalysisSection.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/recommendations/page.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/page.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/competitors/SectionCompetitor.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 9 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/competitors/page.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionSoftLaunchStrategy.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 5 locations) src/app/privacy/page.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) src/app/terms/page.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) src/concept/adapters/ConceptRepositorySQLite.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/domain/SocialMediaCampaigns.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/page.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4 locations) src/concept/app/commands/AcceptConcept.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) src/concept/events/subscribers/ConceptEvaluationSubscriber.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/SectionElevatorPitch.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/domain/TargetAudience.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/SocialMediaCampaignsEvaluator.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/page.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionDayByDayPlan.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionSoftLaunchStrategy.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3 locations) src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 5 locations) src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx
  • Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3 locations) src/concept/domain/ClarityScore.ts
  • Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 3) src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/idea/app/commands/RequestSocialMediaCampaigns.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/app/api/limits/route.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file REDACTED
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/idea/adapters/EventBusInMemory.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/app/api/apps/hypothesis_generator/[id]/route.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file REDACTED
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/lib/redis.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/idea/domain/events/ContextAnalysisEvaluated.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/idea/domain/events/IdeaArchived.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/idea/domain/events/IdeaCreated.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/idea/domain/events/SocialMediaCampaignsRequested.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/idea/domain/events/TargetAudiencesEvaluated.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/idea/domain/events/ValuePropositionEvaluated.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/instrumentation.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/lib/goals.ts
  • Test Coverage · No test reaches this file src/tools/hypothesis.ts
Rebuild cost: about €29,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€9,600 to €48,000, for 160 to 507 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemStandard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×0.7 at a score of 45. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
SizeSmall: 19,445 lines of product code

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

Top priorities

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

1
Protect endpoints by default-deny: a global authentication guard or middleware with explicit public opt-outs, or a guard on every route, plus named role/permission rules for what an authenticated caller may do.
Raises the score by about 12 points · Medium effort · Access Controls
2
Resolve the 87 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with page.tsx (22), Service.ts (3), REDACTED (3).
Raises the score by about 2 points · Medium effort · Knowledge Freshness
3
Resolve the 21 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (21).
Raises the score by about 4 points · Medium effort · Dependency Vulnerabilities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €29,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 31 (Weak). Security and Compliance is about how well the product is protected, and how it handles personal data. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Security and Compliance also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Security and Compliance grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Security and Compliance actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Protect endpoints by default-deny: a global authentication guard or middleware with explicit public opt-outs, or a guard on every route, plus named role/permission rules for what an authenticated caller may do. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 12 points for medium effort. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

243 modules, with 261 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 203 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 ai.HypothesisGenerator2 app.concepts.[id].ClarityScoreSection3 app.concepts.[id].LanguageAnalysisSection4 app.concepts.[id].ReportPage5 concept.events.Event6 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.BaseEvaluator7 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.types8 app.concepts.[id].types9 concept.domain.Aggregate10 concept.domain.Repository11 concept.domain.anonymization.AnonymizationService12 concept.events.EventHandler13 idea.domain.events.TargetAudiencesEvaluated14 idea.domain.events.ValuePropositionEvaluated15 app.concepts.[id].page16 concept.adapters.ConceptRepositorySQLite17 concept.domain.Evaluation18 concept.events.EventBus19 concept.events.subscribers.ConceptAnonymizationSubscriber20 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.CompetitorAnalysisEvaluator21 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.ContentIdeasEvaluator22 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.ElevatorPitchesEvaluator23 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluator24 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.SWOTAnalysisEvaluator25 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.SocialMediaCampaignsEvaluator26 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.TestingPlanEvaluator27 concept.events.subscribers.ConceptEvaluationSubscriber28 concept.events.subscribers.ConceptTransitionSubscriber29 idea.domain.Aggregate30 idea.events.subscribers.CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber31 idea.events.subscribers.ContentIdeasEvaluationSubscriber32 idea.events.subscribers.ContextAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber33 idea.events.subscribers.ElevatorPitchesEvaluationSubscriber34 idea.events.subscribers.GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluationSubscriber35 idea.events.subscribers.MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber36 idea.events.subscribers.PotentialNamesEvaluationSubscriber37 idea.events.subscribers.SWOTAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber38 idea.events.subscribers.SocialMediaCampaignsSubscriber39 idea.events.subscribers.TestingPlanEvaluationSubscriber40 idea.events.subscribers.ValuePropositionEvaluationSubscriber
1 ai.HypothesisGenerator
2 app.concepts.[id].ClarityScoreSection
3 app.concepts.[id].LanguageAnalysisSection
4 app.concepts.[id].ReportPage
5 concept.events.Event
6 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.BaseEvaluator
7 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.types
8 app.concepts.[id].types11
9 concept.domain.Aggregate11
10 concept.domain.Repository1
11 concept.domain.anonymization.AnonymizationService1112
12 concept.events.EventHandler1
13 idea.domain.events.TargetAudiencesEvaluated1
14 idea.domain.events.ValuePropositionEvaluated1
15 app.concepts.[id].page111
16 concept.adapters.ConceptRepositorySQLite111
17 concept.domain.Evaluation1111
18 concept.events.EventBus11
19 concept.events.subscribers.ConceptAnonymizationSubscriber111
20 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.CompetitorAnalysisEvaluator111
21 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.ContentIdeasEvaluator1111
22 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.ElevatorPitchesEvaluator1111
23 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluator1111
24 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.SWOTAnalysisEvaluator1111
25 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.SocialMediaCampaignsEvaluator1111
26 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.TestingPlanEvaluator1111
27 concept.events.subscribers.ConceptEvaluationSubscriber1111
28 concept.events.subscribers.ConceptTransitionSubscriber111
29 idea.domain.Aggregate111
30 idea.events.subscribers.CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber111111
31 idea.events.subscribers.ContentIdeasEvaluationSubscriber11111111
32 idea.events.subscribers.ContextAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber1111111
33 idea.events.subscribers.ElevatorPitchesEvaluationSubscriber1111111
34 idea.events.subscribers.GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluationSubscriber1111111
35 idea.events.subscribers.MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber111111
36 idea.events.subscribers.PotentialNamesEvaluationSubscriber111111
37 idea.events.subscribers.SWOTAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber1111111
38 idea.events.subscribers.SocialMediaCampaignsSubscriber111111
39 idea.events.subscribers.TestingPlanEvaluationSubscriber11111121
40 idea.events.subscribers.ValuePropositionEvaluationSubscriber1111111
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 ai.HypothesisGenerator2 app.concepts.[id].ClarityScoreSection3 app.concepts.[id].LanguageAnalysisSection4 app.concepts.[id].ReportPage5 concept.events.Event6 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.BaseEvaluator7 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.types8 app.concepts.[id].types9 concept.domain.Aggregate10 concept.domain.Repository11 concept.domain.anonymization.AnonymizationService12 concept.events.EventHandler13 idea.domain.events.TargetAudiencesEvaluated14 idea.domain.events.ValuePropositionEvaluated15 app.concepts.[id].page16 concept.adapters.ConceptRepositorySQLite17 concept.domain.Evaluation18 concept.events.EventBus19 concept.events.subscribers.ConceptAnonymizationSubscriber20 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.CompetitorAnalysisEvaluator21 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.ContentIdeasEvaluator22 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.ElevatorPitchesEvaluator23 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluator24 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.SWOTAnalysisEvaluator25 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.SocialMediaCampaignsEvaluator26 idea.adapters.OpenAIService.TestingPlanEvaluator27 concept.events.subscribers.ConceptEvaluationSubscriber28 concept.events.subscribers.ConceptTransitionSubscriber29 idea.domain.Aggregate30 idea.events.subscribers.CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber31 idea.events.subscribers.ContentIdeasEvaluationSubscriber32 idea.events.subscribers.ContextAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber33 idea.events.subscribers.ElevatorPitchesEvaluationSubscriber34 idea.events.subscribers.GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluationSubscriber35 idea.events.subscribers.MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber36 idea.events.subscribers.PotentialNamesEvaluationSubscriber37 idea.events.subscribers.SWOTAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber38 idea.events.subscribers.SocialMediaCampaignsSubscriber39 idea.events.subscribers.TestingPlanEvaluationSubscriber40 idea.events.subscribers.ValuePropositionEvaluationSubscriberai.HypothesisGenerator1app.concepts.[id].ClarityScoreSection2app.concepts.[id].LanguageAnalysisSection3app.concepts.[id].ReportPage4concept.events.Event5idea.adapters.OpenAIService.BaseEvaluator6idea.adapters.OpenAIService.types7app.concepts.[id].types8concept.domain.Aggregate9concept.domain.Repository10concept.domain.anonymization.AnonymizationService11concept.events.EventHandler12idea.domain.events.TargetAudiencesEvaluated13idea.domain.events.ValuePropositionEvaluated14app.concepts.[id].page15concept.adapters.ConceptRepositorySQLite16concept.domain.Evaluation17concept.events.EventBus18concept.events.subscribers.ConceptAnonymizationSubscriber19idea.adapters.OpenAIService.CompetitorAnalysisEvaluator20idea.adapters.OpenAIService.ContentIdeasEvaluator21idea.adapters.OpenAIService.ElevatorPitchesEvaluator22idea.adapters.OpenAIService.GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluator23idea.adapters.OpenAIService.SWOTAnalysisEvaluator24idea.adapters.OpenAIService.SocialMediaCampaignsEvaluator25idea.adapters.OpenAIService.TestingPlanEvaluator26concept.events.subscribers.ConceptEvaluationSubscriber27concept.events.subscribers.ConceptTransitionSubscriber28idea.domain.Aggregate29idea.events.subscribers.CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber30idea.events.subscribers.ContentIdeasEvaluationSubscriber31idea.events.subscribers.ContextAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber32idea.events.subscribers.ElevatorPitchesEvaluationSubscriber33idea.events.subscribers.GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluationSubscriber34idea.events.subscribers.MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber35idea.events.subscribers.PotentialNamesEvaluationSubscriber36idea.events.subscribers.SWOTAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber37idea.events.subscribers.SocialMediaCampaignsSubscriber38idea.events.subscribers.TestingPlanEvaluationSubscriber39idea.events.subscribers.ValuePropositionEvaluationSubscriber401111111121111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111211111111+203 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 75% · Strong ·

The Good
D1 · TypeScript Cyclomatic Complexity 8.1 D2 · TypeScript Cognitive Complexity 8.2 D17 · TypeScript Explicit Debt 9.7 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 10.0 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 7.9 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 9.6 R3 · React / TS Large Files 9.6 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 10.0
The Bad
D3 · TypeScript God Classes 5.3
The Ugly
X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.0

At a glance — Architecture · 86% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good
D6 · TypeScript Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.7 D23 · TypeScript Boundary Type-Coupling 10.0 D35 · TypeScript Change Coupling 9.7 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.3 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 10.0
The Bad
D7 · TypeScript Architectural Integrity 6.0
The Ugly
D26 · TypeScript Project Cohesion 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 61% · Adequate · gated by D34 ·

The Good
D15 · TypeScript Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.8 D19 · TypeScript Documentation Quality 8.0 D20 · TypeScript ADR Quality 7.0 D21 · TypeScript Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.7 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0
The Ugly
D34 · TypeScript Knowledge Freshness 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 48% · Weak · gated by R4, P2 ·

The Good
D8 · TypeScript Code Coverage 10.0 D9 · TypeScript Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · TypeScript Test Quality 10.0 D11 · TypeScript Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · TypeScript Dependency Hygiene 8.3 D13 · TypeScript Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · TypeScript License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 7.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0 P9 · Repo Domain vs controller coverage 9.9 R6 · React / TS Tooling 10.0 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 10.0
The Bad
R5 · React / TS Dependency Freshness 5.9
The Ugly
P2 · Repo Observability 0.0 R4 · React / TS Test Coverage 2.1

At a glance — Security · 31% · Weak · gated by D29, D30, C2 ·

The Good
D28 · TypeScript Secrets (history) 10.0 D31 · TypeScript IaC & Container Security 9.4 D43 · TypeScript Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · TypeScript Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0
The Ugly
D29 · TypeScript Static Analysis (SAST) 3.5 D30 · TypeScript Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good
DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0 DM9 · Repo Scattered domain decisions 10.0

At a glance — Accessibility · 56% · Adequate · gated by AC4 ·

The Good
AC3 · Repo Page structure 7.1 AC5 · Repo ARIA correctness 10.0
The Bad
AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 6.0 AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 5.8 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 6.0
The Ugly
AC4 · Repo Keyboard semantics 3.5

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good
PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures44High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection21High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration7Medium

Roadmap

First, secure the application by implementing a global authentication guard with explicit public opt-outs and named role permissions to protect all endpoints. Next, immediately resolve the 21 high-severity dependency vulnerabilities and the 10 deprecated packages to eliminate known security risks. Then, integrate structured logging using pino or winston at key service points to establish basic observability. Finally, increase test coverage by adding tests for the currently unreached production modules to ensure code reliability.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Protect endpoints by default-deny: a global authentication guard or middleware with explicit public opt-outs, or a guard on every route, plus named role/permission rules for what an authenticated caller may do.+11.9 ptsMediumAccess Controls
Resolve the 87 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with page.tsx (22), Service.ts (3), REDACTED (3).+1.9 ptsMediumKnowledge Freshness
Resolve the 21 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (21).+3.6 ptsMediumDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.+1.5 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.+1.5 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED.+1.5 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 1 Critical vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED.+1.5 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Adopt pino (or winston) and log at meaningful points in the services you run.+3.0 ptsMediumObservability

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 60 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 8% slop · 42% mixed · 50% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED0.0SlopDependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx1.3SlopChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx ↔ IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts
REDACTED1.4SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED2.0SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED3.7SlopStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED4.1MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: Critical vulnerability: REDACTED
REDACTED5.4MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts6.0MixedExplicit Debt: FixmeComment
src/concept/adapters/OpenAIService/ConceptEvaluator.ts6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
REDACTED6.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED6.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts6.3MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: Idea
src/components/ConceptForm.tsx7.2MixedCyclomatic Complexity: ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm (cyclomatic 25)
REDACTED7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
src/concept/adapters/ConceptRepositorySQLite.ts7.3MixedExplicit Debt: FixmeComment
src/components/HypothesisGenerator.tsx7.4MixedCyclomatic Complexity: HypothesisGenerator.HypothesisGenerator (cyclomatic 16)
src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: TestingPlan.New (cyclomatic 38)
src/idea/domain/ProductName.ts7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: ProductName.New (cyclomatic 21)
src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Competitor.New (cyclomatic 20)

How the grades work

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

Critical — 48

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 — 235

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 — 133

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

Could not be resolved — 6

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. 79 of 83 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 1.0 — 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 — 83 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D6D7D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D19D20D21D23D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D43D44AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX10AX3AX4AX6C2DM6DM9GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P8P9PF3R1R10R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X21X22X23X24X25X28X29X3X30X5

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
  1. 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, 398 of 416 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a160a7-9524-72dc-80de-7b5b76d5ec40.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D16 Bus Factor — 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. Single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 433 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. This repository's source is written only in languages whose packages are published through a manifest, and no manifest in the tree makes a publication act: either there is no package manifest of any ecosystem (no REDACTED, pyproject.toml, setup.py, gemspec, Cargo.toml, pom.xml, build.gradle, composer.json, pubspec.yaml or mix.exs), or every one present declares in its package manager's own terms that it is not published (an npm package marked "private": true, a Cargo package with publish = false, a pubspec with publish_to: none, a Composer "project", a Poetry project with package-mode = false, or the "Private :: Do Not Upload" classifier). With no publication act there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
  • D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via DockerCompose (REDACTED). compose up failed (exit 14 — a file the compose project references is missing) — time="2026-10-21T22:49:41Z" level=warning msg="The \"NEXT_PUBLIC_URL\" variable is not set. Defaulting to a blank string." env file .env not found: stat .env: no such file or directory; runtime evidence skipped.
  • DM9 Scattered domain decisions — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Arm two tells a construction that PRODUCES a measurement from one that merely passes it along, and this repository's frontend does not compute that fact. A measurement built independently in two places would not appear above.
  • R10 Code Duplication — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 56 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 96.
  • R4 Test Coverage — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 16 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 56.
  • 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. 275 JavaScript/TypeScript file(s) were read for weak hashes and ciphers, key material fixed in the source, disabled certificate validation and obsolete TLS versions, and none was found. The server controls this dimension also scores were not assessed, so no score is given.
  • X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations: 12 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.

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.
  • 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.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
  • D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
  • 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.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • 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.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
  • AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
  • AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
  • 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.
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D20, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

10 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ContextAnalysis.New at 42.

ContextAnalysis.New (cyclomatic 42)src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:32
TestingPlan.New (cyclomatic 38)src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:81
IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById (cyclomatic 27)src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:318
ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm (cyclomatic 25)src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:213
ProductName.New (cyclomatic 21)src/idea/domain/ProductName.ts:12

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 10 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ContextAnalysis.New (cyclomatic 42), TestingPlan.New (cyclomatic 38), IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById (cyclomatic 27). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 10 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.1 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

10 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ContextAnalysis.New at 39.

ContextAnalysis.New (cognitive 39)src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:32
TestingPlan.New (cognitive 37)src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:81
IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById (cognitive 27)src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:318
ProductName.New (cognitive 22)src/idea/domain/ProductName.ts:12
ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm (cognitive 21)src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:213

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 10 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with ContextAnalysis.New (cognitive 39), TestingPlan.New (cognitive 37), IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById (cognitive 27). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 10 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 8.2 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. 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.

D3 · God Classes5.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

24 god class(es) detected.

FunctionTooLong: ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm · ×15src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:213
MethodTooLong: IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById · ×4src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:318
FileTooLong: components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx · ×3src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx
ClassTooLong: IdeaRepositorySQLitesrc/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:26
TooManyMethods: Ideasrc/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts:16

What to do

  1. Resolve the 15 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with page.tsx (8), ConceptForm.tsx, template.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts (2), ConceptEvaluator.ts, GetIdea.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 3 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with IdeaPDFReport.tsx, IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts, ConceptForm.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.7 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 41 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: Idea (LCOM4 13)src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts:16

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with Aggregate.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. 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.

D7 · Architectural Integrity6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the code respects its intended layering / architecture rules.

Method: Enforcement rung (Prevented/Verified/Documented) per checkable ADR via Roslyn, plus dependency cycles via the engine shared with D5/AX3. Deterministic, exact.

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

No mechanizable ADR was identified, so enforcement is not measured. Dependency cycles not checked (no project-reference graph; where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there).

What to do

  1. Enforce Architectural Integrity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d7_recommendation.md.

D8 · Code Coverage10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.

Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.

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

Line coverage 99.0%. Measured from the JavaScript/TypeScript suite (jest via `npm ci --ignore-scripts` in the repository root).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md.

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.

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

582 test methods: 582 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 582 `it`/`test` case(s) across 41 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

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.

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 582 tests.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). JavaScript/TypeScript (jest via `npm ci --ignore-scripts` in the repository root (573 tests)): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

13 outdated direct production npm dependency(ies) of 13 graded, 0 pinning defect(s), across 1 REDACTED (1 of them the product) and 1 committed lockfile(s). Development dependencies are deliberately not graded for currency: that grade is about what SHIPS. 2 direct dependency(ies) — production, development or optional — are marked DEPRECATED by their publisher (the registry's per-version mark, or the lockfile's copy of it when the registry could not be asked); deprecated transitive packages are listed but not charged. Whether any is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — the registry publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, and the frontend dependency lens (R8) answers it in this same run. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from the manifest there.

Deprecated: next · ×2REDACTED:30
Deprecated: @humanwhocodes/config-array · ×10REDACTED:1233
Outdated (npm): @sentry/nextjs · ×3REDACTED:27
Outdated (npm): @prisma/client · ×10

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED (10). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Outdated (npm) finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 2 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 13 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 13 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 1 product REDACTED manifest(s). Its 34 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.8 / 10Stronggated by 6 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx (13×18=234); src/components/ConceptForm.tsx (9×25=225); src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts (8×27=216)

Hotspot: src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx · ×6src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:178

What to do

  1. Resolve the 6 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx, ConceptForm.tsx, IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).

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

D17 · Explicit Debt9.7 / 10Stronggated by 29 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

29 deducted task-comment markers across 19445 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.7. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×16src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:187
FixmeComment · ×13REDACTED:11

What to do

  1. Resolve the 16 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ConceptEvaluator.ts (2), ContextAnalysis.ts (2), IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 13 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts (3), REDACTED (2), ConceptRepositorySQLite.ts (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
  3. 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.

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is a clear, well-written sales pitch that explains what CheckMVP does and how it helps founders validate their ideas — it opens with an engaging greeting ('Hey there, future founder! 👋'), states the problem (no one actually uses your idea), and gives a strong 'Getting Started Is Super Simple' walkthrough plus a free/open-source claim. The ADR/ADRs directory contains two focused design documents that document that directory's purpose rather than the repository as a whole: an ADR introducing a Draft stage before Concept, and another proposing a card-based report layout — both are well written and complete with context, decision rationale, status, consequences, and next steps. The visible content is clear and complete for its scope; the unshown sections under each document (e.g., licensing, contributor guidance) fall below the clip marker and must not be flagged as missing.

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README is a clear, well-written sales pitch that explains what CheckMVP does and how it helps founders validate their ideas — it opens with an engaging greeting ('Hey there, future founder! 👋'), states the problem (no one actually uses your idea), and gives a strong 'Getting Started Is Super Simple' walkthrough plus a free/open-source claim. The ADR/ADRs directory contains two focused design documents that document that directory's purpose rather than the repository as a whole: an ADR introducing a Draft stage before Concept, and another proposing a card-based report layout — both are well written and complete with context, decision rationale, status, consequences, and next steps. The visible content is clear and complete for its scope; the unshown sections under each document (e.g., licensing, contributor guidance) fall below the clip marker and must not be flagged as missing.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

D20 · ADR QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

Evaluated 1 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 7.0/10 (mixed — many ADRs miss context or consequences). 0 flagged with a specific gap.

What to do

  1. Improve ADR Quality — currently 7.0/10. — Evaluated 1 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 7.0/10 (mixed — many ADRs miss context or consequences). 0 flagged with a specific gap.

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md.

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.

Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.

Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.

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

No domain types leak across context boundaries (2 contexts).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d23_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

1 of 1 build units (npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

  1. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

21 finding(s): 0 critical, 11 high, 10 medium, 0 low. 8 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 1 file(s) — `REDACTED` (lines 31–51) — 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.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  3. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 8 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 (8 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

44 finding(s): 2 critical, 22 high, 17 medium, 3 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 21 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (21). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Critical vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

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

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.4 / 10Stronggated by 6 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

7 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 6 medium, 1 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 6 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

90 of 90 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx. Counted over 90 of the 282 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×87src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx:1
Most significant orphaned file · ×3src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx:1
Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 87 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with page.tsx (22), Service.ts (3), REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (87 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with IdeaPDFReport.tsx, ConceptForm.tsx, IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling9.7 / 10Adequategated by 4 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx↔IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts 91%; IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx↔Service.ts 90%; Aggregate.ts↔Service.ts 90%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx ↔ IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts · ×4src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:1
Change coupling: Aggregate.ts ↔ Service.ts · ×2src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with Aggregate.ts, IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 0 platform declaration(s) and 13 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC2 · Forms & labels6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

  • This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label. (×6) — src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx:199, src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx:224, src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/results/page.tsx:75, …
  • This <div> carries a click handler, which makes it a control, but it has no text, aria-label or labelled child (the icon-only case), so assistive tech has no name to announce for it. Note that switching it to <button type="button"> — the right fix for its keyboard operability — does not give it a name either: an icon-only button still needs one. Add visible text or an aria-label. — src/app/ideas/[id]/components/NavBar.tsx:70

What to do

  • Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
AC3 · Page structure7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

  • A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Declare it the way this router does — Next App Router `export const metadata = { title }`, React Router/Remix `export function meta`, TanStack Start `head`, or a Helmet/Head component. — src/app/global-error.tsx:17
  • Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. (×5) — src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/results/page.tsx:26, src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/setup/page.tsx:20, src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/new/page.tsx:53, …

What to do

  • Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
AC4 · Keyboard semantics3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".

  • A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler. — src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/ConfirmationPopup.tsx:29

What to do

  • Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety5.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

  • This element's Tailwind text/background colour utilities fall below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Pick a darker or lighter shade. — src/app/ideas/[id]/components/DownloadPDFButton.tsx:78
  • <div> moves — its `animate-spin` utility runs with no motion-safe:/motion-reduce: variant — and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it, so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Gate it on @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference) or motion-safe:. (×2) — src/app/tools/hypothesis-generator/[id]/page.tsx:47, src/components/FetchingDataMessage.tsx:3
  • <button> takes keyboard focus, and its outline-none utility removes the focus ring with no focus-state ring, shadow, border or outline utility in its place. Add one (e.g. focus-visible:ring-2). — src/components/BackToTopButton.tsx:22

What to do

  • Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
AC7 · A11y enforcement6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.

  • An a11y linter is configured (Documented) but there's no automated a11y test or CI gate. Add jest-axe to verify at runtime, then gate it in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 132 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

What to do

  • Accessibility linting is already configured — assert with jest-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
AX10 · Code composition8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

C2 · Access Controls0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

  • This repository serves requests — server route file REDACTED (REDACTED:1) — and no route guard, auth-gate middleware, global guard or imperative check that refuses a caller (401/403, an Unauthorized/Forbidden error) was found: its endpoints may be unprotected. — REDACTED:1

What to do

  • Protect endpoints by default-deny: a global authentication guard or middleware with explicit public opt-outs, or a guard on every route, plus named role/permission rules for what an authenticated caller may do.
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies — a domain aggregate fused to a persistence ORM (TypeORM/Prisma/MikroORM/Sequelize/Mongoose) on its own declaration (active-record) couples the domain to infrastructure. The clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether one domain rule is decided — or one measurement produced — in more than one place, rather than living on the type that owns it.

Method: Neutral body surface plus Roslyn (DDD-gated), two arms. DECISION (Roslyn only): a predicate over a domain type's members judged in two or more types, where none of those decisions live on the owning type — operands of comparisons and relational property patterns only, so a member merely passed as an argument is not judged. DERIVATION: a plain all-numeric carrier of ≥2 members, with no base type and exactly one constructor, CONSTRUCTED as the result of a method (returned or assigned, never inline as an argument) in two or more types other than its own — the same measurement produced twice, which centralising the judgement does not fix. DERIVATION runs on every language whose frontend declares the produced-or-passed fact per construction (Roslyn and the Java sidecar today); a target with only the derivation arm carries an engine gap naming the decision arm as not assessed, and a frontend that declares nothing keeps the dimension not measured rather than clean. Single-member rules, test code and generated code are out of population for both. Advisory.

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue in this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript: functions whose whole body still throws a "not implemented" error, and placeholder text (lorem ipsum, changeme/replace_me…) left in strings and JSX of non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords, in this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript: functions that only throw a "not implemented" error, functions that take inputs and return a constant or do nothing, async functions that never await, dead `if (false)` branches, and skeleton classes most of whose methods are holes.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Grow the ADR log (currently 1) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

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

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

P2 · Observability0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No logging call was found in the 275 JavaScript/TypeScript production file(s) this check read across 1 module(s). Each was searched for its ecosystem's logging libraries (JavaScript/TypeScript: pino, winston, bunyan, log4js, loglevel, consola, the NestJS Logger) and for a call on a receiver named `log`/`logger` (or ending in `Logger`/`_logger`) with a level verb. It cannot see logging through a repo-local wrapper named otherwise, or in source it did not read — this is 'no logging found by this walk', not a verdict that nothing here logs. If it is right, production issues will be hard to diagnose.

What to do

  • Adopt pino (or winston) and log at meaningful points in the services you run.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (@opentelemetry/sdk-node) and a health-check endpoint (@godaddy/terminus or a /health route) for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Dependabot is configured but does not watch `github-actions` — add that `package-ecosystem` entry to REDACTED so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether database schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than being auto-created from the model at startup.

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.

P9 · Domain vs controller coverage9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether test coverage concentrates on the domain (business rules) rather than the trivial web/controller layer — a focus check a generic tool can't make.

Method: Roslyn plus test-execution analysis: domain-layer versus trivial web/controller coverage ratio. Computed metric, deterministic.

What to do

  • Raise domain coverage toward 100% — cover the remaining aggregates / value objects / domain services where the business invariants and costly bugs live.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

R1 · Type Safety10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

R10 · Code Duplication7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

  • 30 duplicated blocks under src/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories ai, app, common, components, concept, idea — 17 of them are reported below, and 13 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 30 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 30 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 30 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:25
  • 18 duplicated blocks under src/app/ideas/[id]/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories competitors, components, elevator_pitches, google_trends, market_analysis, marketing (+5 more sibling(s) not listed) — 8 of them are reported below, and 10 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 18 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 18 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 18 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/SectionElevatorPitch.tsx:27
  • 16 duplicated blocks under src/app/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories agencies, api, concepts, developers, freelancers, hypotheses (+7 more sibling(s) not listed) — 11 of them are reported below, and 5 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 16 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 16 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 16 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — src/app/agencies/page.tsx:44
  • src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:25 · src/idea/app/queries/GetIdea.ts:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents. — src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:25
  • src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:92 · src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/TwoWeekTestingPlanReport.tsx:15 · src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx:156 · src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:727 · +1 more site(s) not listed — the 5 copies are spread across 5 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents. — src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:92
  • src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:1 · src/idea/events/subscribers/TestingPlanEvaluationSubscriber.ts:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents. — src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:1
  • src/idea/events/subscribers/ContentIdeasEvaluationSubscriber.ts:44 · src/idea/events/subscribers/SocialMediaCampaignsSubscriber.ts:53 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 359 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/idea/events/subscribers/ContentIdeasEvaluationSubscriber.ts:44
  • src/ai/BasePrompt.ts:1 · src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/BaseEvaluator.ts:1 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 52 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — src/ai/BasePrompt.ts:1
  • src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:507 · src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:566 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:507
  • src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:39 · src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:53 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 276 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:39
  • src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/SectionElevatorPitch.tsx:27 · src/app/ideas/[id]/value_proposition/SectionHowToPitch.tsx:19 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 244 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/SectionElevatorPitch.tsx:27
  • src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionContingencyPlans.tsx:9 · src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionCoreAssumptions.tsx:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionContingencyPlans.tsx:9
  • src/idea/events/subscribers/ElevatorPitchesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:31 · src/idea/events/subscribers/GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluationSubscriber.ts:25 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/idea/events/subscribers/ElevatorPitchesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:31
  • src/app/concepts/[id]/PainPointsSection.tsx:11 · src/app/concepts/[id]/SharpenIdeaSection.tsx:11 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 175 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/app/concepts/[id]/PainPointsSection.tsx:11
  • src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/TestingPlanEvaluator.ts:5 · src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:1 · src/idea/events/subscribers/TestingPlanEvaluationSubscriber.ts:9 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents. — src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/TestingPlanEvaluator.ts:5
  • src/idea/domain/ElevatorPitch.ts:10 · src/idea/domain/MarketAnalysis.ts:10 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/idea/domain/ElevatorPitch.ts:10
  • src/app/agencies/page.tsx:44 · src/app/developers/page.tsx:43 · src/app/freelancers/page.tsx:43 · src/app/indie-hackers/page.tsx:43 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 8 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 8 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/app/agencies/page.tsx:44
  • src/app/ideas/[id]/competitors/SectionComparison.tsx:11 · src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionKeyMetrics.tsx:13 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/app/ideas/[id]/competitors/SectionComparison.tsx:11
  • src/app/concepts/[id]/page.tsx:9 · src/app/concepts/[id]/types.ts:1 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents. — src/app/concepts/[id]/page.tsx:9
  • src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:382 · src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:439 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:382
  • src/idea/events/subscribers/MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:29 · src/idea/events/subscribers/PotentialNamesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:33 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/idea/events/subscribers/MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:29
  • src/app/freelancers/page.tsx:92 · src/app/mvp-specialists/page.tsx:92 · src/app/product-managers/page.tsx:92 · src/app/startups/page.tsx:89 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/app/freelancers/page.tsx:92
  • src/app/ideas/[id]/marketing/social_media_campaigns/components/SectionLongFormContent.tsx:46 · src/app/ideas/[id]/marketing/social_media_campaigns/components/SectionShortFormContent.tsx:46 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/app/ideas/[id]/marketing/social_media_campaigns/components/SectionLongFormContent.tsx:46
  • src/idea/events/subscribers/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:45 · src/idea/events/subscribers/MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:29 · src/idea/events/subscribers/PotentialNamesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:33 — the 3 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/idea/events/subscribers/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:45
  • REDACTED:17 · REDACTED:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — REDACTED:17
  • src/app/ideas/[id]/page.tsx:10 · src/app/ideas/[id]/target_audience/page.tsx:10 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — src/app/ideas/[id]/page.tsx:10
  • REDACTED:17 · src/common/client/Concept/Service.ts:35 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — REDACTED:17
  • src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/page.tsx:17 · src/app/concepts/[id]/page.tsx:90 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/page.tsx:17
  • src/app/ideas/[id]/components/SectionExistingSolutions.tsx:13 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/SectionMainChallenges.tsx:13 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/SectionOpportunities.tsx:13 · src/app/ideas/[id]/swot/SectionOpportunities.tsx:13 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/app/ideas/[id]/components/SectionExistingSolutions.tsx:13
  • src/app/agencies/page.tsx:96 · src/app/developers/page.tsx:95 · src/app/freelancers/page.tsx:98 · src/app/indie-hackers/page.tsx:98 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 8 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/app/agencies/page.tsx:96
  • src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/page.tsx:8 · src/app/ideas/[id]/google_trends/page.tsx:8 · src/app/ideas/[id]/market_analysis/page.tsx:8 · src/app/ideas/[id]/marketing/page.tsx:8 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 8 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 8 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/page.tsx:8
  • src/concept/app/commands/AcceptConcept.ts:19 · src/idea/app/commands/MakeReservation.ts:37 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/concept/app/commands/AcceptConcept.ts:19
  • src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ContextAnalysisEvaluator.ts:56 · src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/SWOTAnalysisEvaluator.ts:24 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ContextAnalysisEvaluator.ts:56
  • src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/page.tsx:26 · src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/page.tsx:59 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/page.tsx:26
  • src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ElevatorPitchesEvaluator.ts:21 · src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/PotentialNamesEvaluator.ts:25 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ElevatorPitchesEvaluator.ts:21
  • src/app/concepts/[id]/WelcomeBanner.tsx:9 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/AboutReport.tsx:8 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/ExpirationNotice.tsx:12 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/app/concepts/[id]/WelcomeBanner.tsx:9
  • src/app/concepts/[id]/WelcomeBanner.tsx:68 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/AboutReport.tsx:67 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/ExpirationNotice.tsx:44 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/app/concepts/[id]/WelcomeBanner.tsx:68
  • src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluator.ts:46 · src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/MarketAnalysisEvaluator.ts:18 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluator.ts:46
  • src/app/template.tsx:126 · src/app/template.tsx:190 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/app/template.tsx:126
  • src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:142 · src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:179 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:142

What to do

  • Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

  • New has cyclomatic complexity 31 and cognitive complexity 30; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:81
  • New has cyclomatic complexity 28 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:32
  • getById has cyclomatic complexity 27 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:318
  • New has cyclomatic complexity 21 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/idea/domain/ProductName.ts:12
  • New has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 19; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:14
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:60
  • New has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×2) — src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts:44, src/idea/domain/TargetAudience.ts:15
  • New has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/concept/domain/TargetAudience.ts:17
  • evaluateConcept has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/concept/adapters/OpenAIService/ConceptEvaluator.ts:112
  • GET has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — REDACTED:7
  • handle has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/idea/app/queries/GetIdea.ts:177
  • getById has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/concept/adapters/ConceptRepositorySQLite.ts:154
  • New has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. (×2) — src/idea/domain/ElevatorPitch.ts:10, src/idea/domain/MarketAnalysis.ts:10
  • DefineConceptForm has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 9; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:213

What to do

  • Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
R3 · Large Files9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

  • src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx has 919 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx:1
  • src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts has 762 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:1
  • src/components/ConceptForm.tsx has 602 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:1

What to do

  • Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
R4 · Test Coverage2.1 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

  • jest.config.ts declares environment "node", and no package here declares a DOM implementation (jsdom / happy-dom), a component testing library or a browser runner — so none of the 150 unreached component module(s) can be tested as written, however the suite is authored: src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx, src/components/ConceptForm.tsx, src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx, src/components/HypothesisGenerator.tsx, src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx, src/app/template.tsx and 144 more. Add a DOM environment and a component testing library (for example jsdom + @testing-library, or the runner's browser mode), then test the components. Reported once because these files share one cause, not one omission each. — jest.config.ts:1
  • No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×39) — src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:1, src/idea/app/queries/GetIdea.ts:1, src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/TestingPlanEvaluator.ts:1, …

What to do

  • Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R5 · Dependency Freshness5.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).

Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.

  • 41 outdated package(s); JS/npm CVEs scored in D30

What to do

  • Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.
R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each REDACTED script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: REDACTED scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

R7 · Dead Code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

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

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

X2 · Cancellation propagation4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 0/3 async functions that make a cancellable request (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch) accept an AbortSignal or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a page navigated away from, an unmounted component, a timed-out job. Take a `signal` (or an options object that carries one) and hand it to the request; where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
  • `getConceptForReservation` awaits `fetch(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `fetch(url, { signal })`. — src/common/client/Concept/Service.ts:64
  • `reserve` awaits `fetch(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `fetch(url, { signal })`. — src/common/client/Idea/Service.ts:16
  • `pollHypothesis` awaits `fetch(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `fetch(url, { signal })`. — src/components/HypothesisGenerator.tsx:156

What to do

  • Thread an AbortSignal through async functions that make requests, so the work stops when its caller gives up.
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

X5 · Nullable reference types10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether strict null checking is enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` assertion — TypeScript's `strictNullChecks` (which `strict` turns on) is what makes `string` exclude `null` and `undefined`, and the postfix `!` is the operator that silences it.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

  • ~0.1 `!` null assertions per 1k TypeScript source lines — 2 assertion(s) across the 22703 source line(s) of the 275 TypeScript file(s) read, which is the only code the operator asserts anything in (a `!` in a `.js` file is not this operator and was not counted, and one in a file whose null checking is off silences nothing). Densest: src/concept/adapters/EventBusInMemory.ts (1), src/idea/adapters/EventBusInMemory.ts (1). Each one tells the compiler to trust the author about null, suppressing the very diagnostic `strictNullChecks` exists to produce.

What to do

  • The findings name the configuration each number was taken from and, for the assertions, the files that hold them. Turn null checking on where it is off — `"strict": true` in the base tsconfig that the others extend switches `strictNullChecks` on with the rest of the family — and then resolve the assertions rather than adding to them. A `!` on a value the checker could show to be null is a promise the author cannot check from where they are standing, and each one is a `TypeError: Cannot read properties of null` waiting for the path that makes it true; where the value genuinely cannot be null, say something the checker can see instead (narrow it with a test, make the property required, drop the `?`).

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 12 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (22%; ≈24% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 43 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

DimensionWCAG 2.2 A/AA criteriaCoverage
AC2 · Forms & labels1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics2.1.1, 2.4.3Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness4.1.2Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety1.4.3, 2.4.7Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcementenforcement — no page criterionEnforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 43 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.1.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

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.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health75%StrongSolid.
Architecture86%Adequate — gated by D26Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity61%Adequate — gated by D34Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness48%Weak — gated by R4, P2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security31%Weak — gated by D29, D30, C2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Accessibility56%Adequate — gated by AC4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance100%ExemplarySolid.
Unscored — 3 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 3 observation(s) recorded · The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 11 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 2 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.

  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
Not included — 52 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 image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's TypeScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
  • 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
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 14 — a file the compose project references is missing) — time="2026-10-21T22:49:41Z" level=warning msg="The \"NEXT_PUBLIC_URL\" variable is not set. Defaulting to a blank string." env file .env not found: stat .env: no such file or directory; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entity, a Mongoose schema, a Sequelize or Drizzle table, a Knex migration or a Prisma model — and no database or data-store client in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect. If it does persist personal data (through a hosted backend configured outside this repository, for instance), the controls belong to wherever that data is stored.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entity, a Mongoose schema, a Sequelize or Drizzle table, a Knex migration or a Prisma model — and no database or data-store client in the source either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a hosted backend configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entity, a Mongoose schema, a Sequelize or Drizzle table, a Knex migration or a Prisma model — and no database or data-store client in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound. If it does (through a hosted backend configured outside this repository, for instance), the limit belongs wherever that data is stored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entity, a Mongoose schema, a Sequelize or Drizzle table, a Knex migration or a Prisma model — and no database or data-store client in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over. If it does (through a hosted backend configured outside this repository, for instance), the rights are served wherever that data is stored.
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
  • 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 — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
  • D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — none of 1 ADRs are conformance-checkable — unverifiable.
  • D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.ts,.tsx), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D4 Code Duplication — This repository's production source (.ts, .tsx) is not read by D4's token comparison, which compares .NET source: duplication in it is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream. Not scored here — read the R10 card for this repository's duplication.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this npm build ships 1 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
  • DM1 Aggregate boundaries — no aggregates detected — aggregate-boundary check not applicable
  • DM10 One transaction, one aggregate — no repository writes detected — no operation to judge against the one-aggregate rule
  • DM11 Constructible invalid state — no entities detected — construction-time invariants not assessable
  • DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
  • DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
  • DM4 Rich vs anemic model — no data-bearing entities detected — rich-vs-anemic model not assessable
  • DM5 Encapsulated state — no domain entities found — DM5 grades how entities protect their state, and this repository declares none
  • DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for tinybench, mitata, benchmark.js, benny or vitest `bench(...)` calls in files that import them (or `*.bench.*` files), or one of those in a REDACTED, 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.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
  • R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: 275 JavaScript/TypeScript file(s) were read for weak hashes and ciphers, key material fixed in the source, disabled TLS certificate validation and obsolete TLS versions, and none was found. That half of the dimension is clean, but it is not scored on its own: a C# repository with the same clean reading is scored on its server controls as well, or is N/A for having no web surface, and neither can be decided here. The server controls — HTTPS enforcement, HSTS, cookie flags, input validation — are NOT assessed for JavaScript/TypeScript: each is scored as an absence, an absence is only reportable over the production HTTP server, and in this ecosystem the file that opens the port is build output or a framework launcher rather than a file in the source tree. Their absence here is not a finding about this repository.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. TypeScript/JavaScript runs every callback on the one thread that owns its objects: a callback runs only when the body waiting on it has yielded, never alongside it, and a worker thread receives a COPY of what it is sent. A SharedArrayBuffer carries raw bytes, never an Array, Map or Set, so no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — Not applicable: this check looks for a loop whose body adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is walking, invalidating the enumerator it holds, and in this repository's languages that cannot happen. JavaScript and TypeScript have no iterator that a change can invalidate: an `Array` is walked by index against its live length, and a `Map` or `Set` by the ECMAScript specification's live entry list, so a body that adds to, removes from or empties what it walks raises nothing — every loop form (`for…of`, `for…in`, `forEach`, `map`, `filter`, `reduce`, `entries()`) on every built-in collection (`Array`, `Map`, `Set`, plain objects, `URLSearchParams`, `Headers`, `FormData`) runs to completion. Such a loop can still skip an element or never end, which is a different defect and not the one this check asks about. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • 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
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 48 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×21
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
AC2 · Forms & labels · <textarea> without a programmatic label · ×6
  • <textarea> without a programmatic label src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx:199 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
  • <textarea> without a programmatic label src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx:224 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
  • <textarea> without a programmatic label src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/results/page.tsx:75 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
  • <textarea> without a programmatic label src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:375 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
  • <textarea> without a programmatic label src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:429 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
  • <textarea> without a programmatic label src/components/HypothesisGenerator.tsx:252 — This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label htmlFor>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label.
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×4
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx ↔ IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:1 — `src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx` (context ideas) and `src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts` (context idea) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 91% of the time (10 of the 11 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `26af8ca1` Improve idea context evaluation; `8e0376d0` Add idea expiration; `990e8acd` Add two-weeks plan generator — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx ↔ Service.ts src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:1 — `src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx` (context ideas) and `src/idea/service/Service.ts` (context idea) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 90% of the time (9 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `26af8ca1` Improve idea context evaluation; `990e8acd` Add two-weeks plan generator; `b5607f89` Generate a content for social media campaigns — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx ↔ Aggregate.ts src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:1 — `src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx` (context ideas) and `src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts` (context idea) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 82% of the time (9 of the 11 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `26af8ca1` Improve idea context evaluation; `990e8acd` Add two-weeks plan generator; `b5607f89` Generate a content for social media campaigns — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx ↔ GetIdea.ts src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:1 — `src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx` (context ideas) and `src/idea/app/queries/GetIdea.ts` (context idea) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 73% of the time (8 of the 11 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) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `26af8ca1` Improve idea context evaluation; `990e8acd` Add two-weeks plan generator; `ef2595c2` Remove challenges from target audiences in the UI — run `git show` on any of them.
AC2 · Forms & labels · Custom control with no accessible name on <div> · ×1
  • Custom control with no accessible name on <div> src/app/ideas/[id]/components/NavBar.tsx:70 — This <div> carries a click handler, which makes it a control, but it has no text, aria-label or labelled child (the icon-only case), so assistive tech has no name to announce for it. Note that switching it to <button type="button"> — the right fix for its keyboard operability — does not give it a name either: an icon-only button still needs one. Add visible text or an aria-label.
AC3 · Page structure · Document without a <title> · ×1
  • Document without a <title> src/app/global-error.tsx:17 — A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Declare it the way this router does — Next App Router `export const metadata = { title }`, React Router/Remix `export function meta`, TanStack Start `head`, or a Helmet/Head component.
AC4 · Keyboard semantics · Click handler on a non-interactive <div> · ×1
  • Click handler on a non-interactive <div> src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/ConfirmationPopup.tsx:29 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×1
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical vulnerability · ×1
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High vulnerability · ×1
  • REDACTED
Serious — 235 finding(s)
R4 · Test Coverage · No test reaches this file · ×39
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/app/queries/GetIdea.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/TestingPlanEvaluator.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/service/Service.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/TestingPlanEvaluationSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/SocialMediaCampaignsSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/SocialMediaCampaignsEvaluator.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/app/commands/MakeReservation.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/ContextAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ContextAnalysisEvaluator.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/ContentIdeasEvaluationSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ContentIdeasEvaluator.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluator.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/ElevatorPitchesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file REDACTED:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/SWOTAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/PotentialNamesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/ai/BasePrompt.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluationSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file REDACTED:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file REDACTED:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file src/idea/events/subscribers/ValuePropositionEvaluationSubscriber.ts:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file REDACTED:1 — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • + 14 more in this group — see findings.md.
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×16
  • TodoComment src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:187 — // TODO: Check for null in data.targetAudiences[].[why,painPoints,targetingStrategy] — 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 src/concept/adapters/OpenAIService/ConceptEvaluator.ts:197 — // TODO: Handle refusal — 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 src/concept/adapters/OpenAIService/ConceptEvaluator.ts:202 — // TODO: Add Sentry message context — 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 src/concept/domain/Aggregate.ts:91 — // TODO: It would be better to rename this method to something like — 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 src/idea/app/commands/MakeReservation.ts:86 — // TODO: Add validation metrics to the target audience — 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 src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:1 — // TODO: Extract to a value object — 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 src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:9 — // TODO: Extract to a value object — 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 src/idea/domain/CompetitorAnalysis.ts:3 — // TODO: Extract to a value object — 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 src/idea/events/subscribers/SocialMediaCampaignsSubscriber.ts:142 — // TODO: Emit Event — 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 src/idea/events/subscribers/SWOTAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:92 — // TODO: Emit Event — 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 src/idea/events/subscribers/PotentialNamesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:88 — // TODO: Emit Event — 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 src/idea/events/subscribers/MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:80 — // TODO: Emit Event — 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 src/idea/events/subscribers/GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluationSubscriber.ts:82 — // TODO: Emit Event — 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 src/idea/events/subscribers/ElevatorPitchesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:96 — // TODO: Emit Event — 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 src/idea/events/subscribers/ContentIdeasEvaluationSubscriber.ts:112 — // TODO: Emit Event — 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 src/idea/events/subscribers/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:108 — // TODO: Emit Event — 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.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×16
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×15
  • FunctionTooLong: ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:213 — FunctionTooLong — DefineConceptForm runs 361 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 261 over it, 3.61× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: template.Template src/app/template.tsx:5 — FunctionTooLong — Template runs 221 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 121 over it, 2.21× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: TargetAudiences.TargetAudiences src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx:19 — FunctionTooLong — TargetAudiences runs 200 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 100 over it, 2.00× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: page.NewHypothesis src/app/hypotheses/new/page.tsx:3 — FunctionTooLong — NewHypothesis runs 180 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 80 over it, 1.80× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: page.ExperimentSetup src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/setup/page.tsx:4 — FunctionTooLong — ExperimentSetup runs 158 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 58 over it, 1.58× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: page.TermsPage src/app/terms/page.tsx:4 — FunctionTooLong — TermsPage runs 149 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.49× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: HypothesisGenerator.HypothesisGenerator src/components/HypothesisGenerator.tsx:135 — FunctionTooLong — HypothesisGenerator runs 135 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 35 over it, 1.35× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: IdeaAnalysisReport.IdeaAnalysisReport src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:178 — FunctionTooLong — IdeaAnalysisReport runs 131 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 31 over it, 1.31× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: page.AboutPage src/app/about/page.tsx:6 — FunctionTooLong — AboutPage runs 123 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.23× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: ProblemRequiresChanges.ProblemRequiresChanges src/app/concepts/[id]/ProblemRequiresChanges.tsx:29 — FunctionTooLong — ProblemRequiresChanges runs 122 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 22 over it, 1.22× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: page.ToolsPage src/app/tools/page.tsx:11 — FunctionTooLong — ToolsPage runs 122 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 22 over it, 1.22× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: page.ExperimentRecommendations src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/recommendations/page.tsx:3 — FunctionTooLong — ExperimentRecommendations runs 116 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 16 over it, 1.16× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: MarketingReport.MarketingReport src/app/ideas/[id]/marketing/MarketingReport.tsx:18 — FunctionTooLong — MarketingReport runs 108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.08× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: page.PrivacyPage src/app/privacy/page.tsx:3 — FunctionTooLong — PrivacyPage runs 103 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 3 over it, 1.03× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • FunctionTooLong: page.HypothesesDashboard src/app/hypotheses/page.tsx:87 — FunctionTooLong — HypothesesDashboard runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×13
  • FixmeComment REDACTED:11 — // FIXME: Refactor this to use zod — 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 src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:841 — // FIXME: Refactor this to use zod — 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 REDACTED:9 — // FIXME: Replace with App.Queries.GetReport that will return non-nullable fields. — 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 src/app/concepts/[id]/types.ts:37 — // FIXME: Create a base evaluation type that can be used for all evaluations — 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 src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:90 — // FIXME: Replace the key with typed 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.
  • FixmeComment src/concept/adapters/ConceptRepositorySQLite.ts:167 — // FIXME: This is a temporary fix to support the old data. — 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 src/concept/adapters/ConceptRepositorySQLite.ts:221 — // FIXME: I'm not sure this is the valid scenario. — 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 src/concept/domain/Evaluation.ts:7 — // FIXME: It could be refactored to a factory class. — 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 src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:80 — // FIXME: We must refactor the entire code below to update only changed fields. — 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 src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:358 — // FIXME: This is a temporary solution and must be removed after we make the fields required — 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 src/lib/prompts.ts:16 — // FIXME: Remove this rule: — 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 src/lib/rateLimiter/RateLimiterManager.ts:11 — // FIXME: Make an interface and create a Redis implementation — 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 src/lib/rateLimiter/RateLimiter.ts:10 — // FIXME: Make an interface and create a Redis implementation — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×6
  • Hotspot: src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:178 — src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx changed 13 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in IdeaAnalysisReport.IdeaAnalysisReport at line 178. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2024-11-23..2025-02-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2024-11-23 14:06:28 +04:00' --until='2025-02-21 14:06:28 +04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: src/components/ConceptForm.tsx src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:213 — src/components/ConceptForm.tsx changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 25 in ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm at line 213. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2024-11-23..2025-02-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2024-11-23 14:06:28 +04:00' --until='2025-02-21 14:06:28 +04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/components/ConceptForm.tsx`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:318 — src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 27 in IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById at line 318. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2024-11-23..2025-02-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2024-11-23 14:06:28 +04:00' --until='2025-02-21 14:06:28 +04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts:44 — src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in Idea.New at line 44. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2024-11-23..2025-02-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2024-11-23 14:06:28 +04:00' --until='2025-02-21 14:06:28 +04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:32 — src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 42 in ContextAnalysis.New at line 32. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2024-11-23..2025-02-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2024-11-23 14:06:28 +04:00' --until='2025-02-21 14:06:28 +04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: src/idea/domain/TargetAudience.ts src/idea/domain/TargetAudience.ts:15 — src/idea/domain/TargetAudience.ts changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in TargetAudience.New at line 15. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2024-11-23..2025-02-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2024-11-23 14:06:28 +04:00' --until='2025-02-21 14:06:28 +04:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/idea/domain/TargetAudience.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×6
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
AC3 · Page structure · Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 · ×5
  • Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/results/page.tsx:26 — Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
  • Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/setup/page.tsx:20 — Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
  • Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/new/page.tsx:53 — Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
  • Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/page.tsx:28 — Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
  • Heading level jumps from h1 to h3 src/app/hypotheses/page.tsx:114 — Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.
D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×4
  • MethodTooLong: IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:318 — MethodTooLong — getById runs 361 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 261 over it, 3.61× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: IdeaRepositorySQLite.updateIdea src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:59 — MethodTooLong — updateIdea runs 167 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 67 over it, 1.67× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: ConceptEvaluator.evaluateConcept src/concept/adapters/OpenAIService/ConceptEvaluator.ts:112 — MethodTooLong — evaluateConcept runs 148 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 48 over it, 1.48× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: GetIdeaHandler.handle src/idea/app/queries/GetIdea.ts:177 — MethodTooLong — handle runs 125 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 25 over it, 1.25× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×3
  • FileTooLong: components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx — FileTooLong — 831 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 331 over it, 1.66× 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: adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts — FileTooLong — 575 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 96% of them inside a single declaration: IdeaRepositorySQLite (26-862). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 75 over it, 1.15× 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: components/ConceptForm.tsx src/components/ConceptForm.tsx — FileTooLong — 518 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 70% of them inside a single declaration: DefineConceptForm (213-667). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.04× 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.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×3
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async function without AbortSignal · ×3
  • Async function without AbortSignal: getConceptForReservation src/common/client/Concept/Service.ts:64 — `getConceptForReservation` awaits `fetch(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `fetch(url, { signal })`.
  • Async function without AbortSignal: reserve src/common/client/Idea/Service.ts:16 — `reserve` awaits `fetch(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `fetch(url, { signal })`.
  • Async function without AbortSignal: pollHypothesis src/components/HypothesisGenerator.tsx:156 — `pollHypothesis` awaits `fetch(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `fetch(url, { signal })`.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard · ×2
  • Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard src/app/tools/hypothesis-generator/[id]/page.tsx:47 — <div> moves — its `animate-spin` utility runs with no motion-safe:/motion-reduce: variant — and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it, so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Gate it on @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference) or motion-safe:.
  • Animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard src/components/FetchingDataMessage.tsx:3 — <div> moves — its `animate-spin` utility runs with no motion-safe:/motion-reduce: variant — and nothing reads prefers-reduced-motion for it, so a motion-sensitive user cannot turn it off (WCAG 2.3.3). Gate it on @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference) or motion-safe:.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×2
  • Deprecated: next REDACTED:30 — next 14.2.23, declared in REDACTED, is marked deprecated by its publisher: "This version has a security vulnerability. Please upgrade to a patched version. See https://nextjs.org/blog/security-update-2025-12-11 for more details.". Replace it with the package or version that message names, or record why this one must stay.
  • Deprecated: eslint REDACTED:49 — eslint 8.57.1, declared in REDACTED, is marked deprecated by its publisher: "This version is no longer supported. Please see https://eslint.org/version-support for other options.". Replace it with the package or version that message names, or record why this one must stay.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2
  • Change coupling: Aggregate.ts ↔ Service.ts src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts:1 — `src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts` and `src/idea/service/Service.ts` change together 90% of the time (9 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) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `26af8ca1` Improve idea context evaluation; `990e8acd` Add two-weeks plan generator; `b5607f89` Generate a content for social media campaigns — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts ↔ GetIdea.ts src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:1 — `src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts` and `src/idea/app/queries/GetIdea.ts` change together 73% of the time (8 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `48e2ee1e` Improve context analysis; `26af8ca1` Improve idea context evaluation; `990e8acd` Add two-weeks plan generator — run `git show` on any of them.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (42 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (42 lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionContingencyPlans.tsx:9 — src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionContingencyPlans.tsx:9 · src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionCoreAssumptions.tsx:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
  • Duplicated block (42 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/events/subscribers/ElevatorPitchesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:31 — src/idea/events/subscribers/ElevatorPitchesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:31 · src/idea/events/subscribers/GoogleTrendsKeywordsEvaluationSubscriber.ts:25 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (31 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (31 lines × 2 locations) src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:382 — src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:382 · src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:439 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (31 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/events/subscribers/MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:29 — src/idea/events/subscribers/MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:29 · src/idea/events/subscribers/PotentialNamesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:33 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 2 locations) REDACTED:17 — REDACTED:17 · REDACTED:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/page.tsx:10 — src/app/ideas/[id]/page.tsx:10 · src/app/ideas/[id]/target_audience/page.tsx:10 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (25 lines × 2 locations) REDACTED:17 — REDACTED:17 · src/common/client/Concept/Service.ts:35 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.
  • Duplicated block (25 lines × 2 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/page.tsx:17 — src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/page.tsx:17 · src/app/concepts/[id]/page.tsx:90 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 8 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (24 lines × 8 locations) src/app/agencies/page.tsx:96 — src/app/agencies/page.tsx:96 · src/app/developers/page.tsx:95 · src/app/freelancers/page.tsx:98 · src/app/indie-hackers/page.tsx:98 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 8 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (24 lines × 8 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/page.tsx:8 — src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/page.tsx:8 · src/app/ideas/[id]/google_trends/page.tsx:8 · src/app/ideas/[id]/market_analysis/page.tsx:8 · src/app/ideas/[id]/marketing/page.tsx:8 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 8 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 8 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (24 lines × 2 locations) src/concept/app/commands/AcceptConcept.ts:19 — src/concept/app/commands/AcceptConcept.ts:19 · src/idea/app/commands/MakeReservation.ts:37 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (24 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ContextAnalysisEvaluator.ts:56 — src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ContextAnalysisEvaluator.ts:56 · src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/SWOTAnalysisEvaluator.ts:24 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/page.tsx:26 — src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/page.tsx:26 · src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/page.tsx:59 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
  • Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ElevatorPitchesEvaluator.ts:21 — src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/ElevatorPitchesEvaluator.ts:21 · src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/PotentialNamesEvaluator.ts:25 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 3 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (22 lines × 3 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/WelcomeBanner.tsx:9 — src/app/concepts/[id]/WelcomeBanner.tsx:9 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/AboutReport.tsx:8 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/ExpirationNotice.tsx:12 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (22 lines × 3 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/WelcomeBanner.tsx:68 — src/app/concepts/[id]/WelcomeBanner.tsx:68 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/AboutReport.tsx:67 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/ExpirationNotice.tsx:44 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) src/app/template.tsx:126 — src/app/template.tsx:126 · src/app/template.tsx:190 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:142 — src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:142 · src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:179 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function New (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) · ×2
  • Complex function New (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts:44 — New has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
  • Complex function New (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) src/idea/domain/TargetAudience.ts:15 — New has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function New (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) · ×2
  • Complex function New (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) src/idea/domain/ElevatorPitch.ts:10 — New has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
  • Complex function New (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) src/idea/domain/MarketAnalysis.ts:10 — New has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Low contrast Tailwind colour pair (2.1 · ×1
  • Low contrast Tailwind colour pair (2.1:1) src/app/ideas/[id]/components/DownloadPDFButton.tsx:78 — This element's Tailwind text/background colour utilities fall below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Pick a darker or lighter shade.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed inline · ×1
  • Focus outline removed inline src/components/BackToTopButton.tsx:22 — <button> takes keyboard focus, and its outline-none utility removes the focus ring with no focus-state ring, shadow, border or outline utility in its place. Add one (e.g. focus-visible:ring-2).
C2 · Access Controls · No authorization · ×1
  • No authorization REDACTED:1 — This repository serves requests — server route file REDACTED (REDACTED:1) — and no route guard, auth-gate middleware, global guard or imperative check that refuses a caller (401/403, an Unauthorized/Forbidden error) was found: its endpoints may be unprotected.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ContextAnalysis.New (cyclomatic 42) · ×1
  • ContextAnalysis.New (cyclomatic 42) src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:32 — ContextAnalysis.New has cyclomatic complexity 42 (threshold 15). Of this number, 35 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TestingPlan.New (cyclomatic 38) · ×1
  • TestingPlan.New (cyclomatic 38) src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:81 — TestingPlan.New has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15). Of this number, 31 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById (cyclomatic 27) · ×1
  • IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById (cyclomatic 27) src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:318 — IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm (cyclomatic 25) src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:213 — ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 12 belong to 5 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ProductName.New (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • ProductName.New (cyclomatic 21) src/idea/domain/ProductName.ts:12 — ProductName.New has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Competitor.New (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • Competitor.New (cyclomatic 20) src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:14 — Competitor.New has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · IdeaAnalysisReport.IdeaAnalysisReport (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • IdeaAnalysisReport.IdeaAnalysisReport (cyclomatic 18) src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:178 — IdeaAnalysisReport.IdeaAnalysisReport has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 18 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 184, handleRemove). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SWOTAnalysis.New (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • SWOTAnalysis.New (cyclomatic 17) src/idea/domain/SWOTAnalysis.ts:9 — SWOTAnalysis.New has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 9 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TargetAudience.New (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • TargetAudience.New (cyclomatic 17) src/idea/domain/TargetAudience.ts:15 — TargetAudience.New has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · HypothesisGenerator.HypothesisGenerator (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • HypothesisGenerator.HypothesisGenerator (cyclomatic 16) src/components/HypothesisGenerator.tsx:135 — HypothesisGenerator.HypothesisGenerator has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 5 function items inside it that branch (pollHypothesis, handleSubmit, getButtonText, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ContextAnalysis.New (cognitive 39) · ×1
  • ContextAnalysis.New (cognitive 39) src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:32 — ContextAnalysis.New has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20, boolean chains 19. Of this number, 34 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TestingPlan.New (cognitive 37) · ×1
  • TestingPlan.New (cognitive 37) src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:81 — TestingPlan.New has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19, boolean chains 18. Of this number, 30 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById (cognitive 27) src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:318 — IdeaRepositorySQLite.getById has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (26 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProductName.New (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • ProductName.New (cognitive 22) src/idea/domain/ProductName.ts:12 — ProductName.New has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (11 pts), boolean chains 9, loops 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm (cognitive 21) src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:213 — ConceptForm.DefineConceptForm has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 11, if/else 8, error handling 1, ternaries 1. Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 5 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Competitor.New (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • Competitor.New (cognitive 19) src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:14 — Competitor.New has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10, boolean chains 9. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HypothesisGenerator.HypothesisGenerator (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • HypothesisGenerator.HypothesisGenerator (cognitive 17) src/components/HypothesisGenerator.tsx:135 — HypothesisGenerator.HypothesisGenerator has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (10 pts), boolean chains 4, error handling 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 2). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 17 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 5 function items inside it that branch (pollHypothesis, handleSubmit, a function literal at line 209, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConceptEvaluator.evaluateConcept (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • ConceptEvaluator.evaluateConcept (cognitive 16) src/concept/adapters/OpenAIService/ConceptEvaluator.ts:112 — ConceptEvaluator.evaluateConcept has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SWOTAnalysis.New (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • SWOTAnalysis.New (cognitive 16) src/idea/domain/SWOTAnalysis.ts:9 — SWOTAnalysis.New has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 8, if/else 8. Of this number, 8 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TargetAudience.New (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • TargetAudience.New (cognitive 16) src/idea/domain/TargetAudience.ts:15 — TargetAudience.New has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 8, if/else 8. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1
  • ClassTooLong: IdeaRepositorySQLite src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:26 — ClassTooLong — 553 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 3 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 153 over it, 1.38× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1
  • TooManyMethods: Idea src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts:16 — TooManyMethods — 38 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 8 over it, 1.27× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×1
  • REDACTED
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1
  • Low cohesion: Idea (LCOM4 13) src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts:16 — Idea's methods fall into 13 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 13 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.
P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Coverage collected but not gated · ×1
  • Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
P2 · Observability · No structured logging · ×1
  • No structured logging — No logging call was found in the 275 JavaScript/TypeScript production file(s) this check read across 1 module(s). Each was searched for its ecosystem's logging libraries (JavaScript/TypeScript: pino, winston, bunyan, log4js, loglevel, consola, the NestJS Logger) and for a call on a receiver named `log`/`logger` (or ending in `Logger`/`_logger`) with a level verb. It cannot see logging through a repo-local wrapper named otherwise, or in source it did not read — this is 'no logging found by this walk', not a verdict that nothing here logs. If it is right, production issues will be hard to diagnose.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplication concentrated across 6 sibling directories (30 clone groups) · ×1
  • Duplication concentrated across 6 sibling directories (30 clone groups) src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:25 — 30 duplicated blocks under src/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories ai, app, common, components, concept, idea — 17 of them are reported below, and 13 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 30 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 30 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 30 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplication concentrated across 11 sibling directories (18 clone groups) · ×1
  • Duplication concentrated across 11 sibling directories (18 clone groups) src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/SectionElevatorPitch.tsx:27 — 18 duplicated blocks under src/app/ideas/[id]/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories competitors, components, elevator_pitches, google_trends, market_analysis, marketing (+5 more sibling(s) not listed) — 8 of them are reported below, and 10 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 18 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 18 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 18 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplication concentrated across 13 sibling directories (16 clone groups) · ×1
  • Duplication concentrated across 13 sibling directories (16 clone groups) src/app/agencies/page.tsx:44 — 16 duplicated blocks under src/app/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories agencies, api, concepts, developers, freelancers, hypotheses (+7 more sibling(s) not listed) — 11 of them are reported below, and 5 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 16 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 16 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 16 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (130 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (130 lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:25 — src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:25 · src/idea/app/queries/GetIdea.ts:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (64 lines × 5 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (64 lines × 5 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:92 — src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:92 · src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/TwoWeekTestingPlanReport.tsx:15 · src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx:156 · src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:727 · +1 more site(s) not listed — the 5 copies are spread across 5 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (62 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (62 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:1 — src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:1 · src/idea/events/subscribers/TestingPlanEvaluationSubscriber.ts:9 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (60 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (60 matched lines × 2 locations) src/idea/events/subscribers/ContentIdeasEvaluationSubscriber.ts:44 — src/idea/events/subscribers/ContentIdeasEvaluationSubscriber.ts:44 · src/idea/events/subscribers/SocialMediaCampaignsSubscriber.ts:53 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 359 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Wholesale file copy (52 identical lines × 2 files) · ×1
  • Wholesale file copy (52 identical lines × 2 files) src/ai/BasePrompt.ts:1 — src/ai/BasePrompt.ts:1 · src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/BaseEvaluator.ts:1 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 52 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (52 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (52 lines × 2 locations) src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:507 — src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:507 · src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:566 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (52 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (52 matched lines × 2 locations) src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:39 — src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:39 · src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:53 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 276 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (45 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (45 matched lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/SectionElevatorPitch.tsx:27 — src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/SectionElevatorPitch.tsx:27 · src/app/ideas/[id]/value_proposition/SectionHowToPitch.tsx:19 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 244 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (39 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (39 matched lines × 2 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/PainPointsSection.tsx:11 — src/app/concepts/[id]/PainPointsSection.tsx:11 · src/app/concepts/[id]/SharpenIdeaSection.tsx:11 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 175 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (36 lines × 3 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (36 lines × 3 locations) src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/TestingPlanEvaluator.ts:5 — src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/TestingPlanEvaluator.ts:5 · src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:1 · src/idea/events/subscribers/TestingPlanEvaluationSubscriber.ts:9 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (35 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (35 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/domain/ElevatorPitch.ts:10 — src/idea/domain/ElevatorPitch.ts:10 · src/idea/domain/MarketAnalysis.ts:10 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (34 lines × 8 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (34 lines × 8 locations) src/app/agencies/page.tsx:44 — src/app/agencies/page.tsx:44 · src/app/developers/page.tsx:43 · src/app/freelancers/page.tsx:43 · src/app/indie-hackers/page.tsx:43 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 8 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 8 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (33 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (33 lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/competitors/SectionComparison.tsx:11 — src/app/ideas/[id]/competitors/SectionComparison.tsx:11 · src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionKeyMetrics.tsx:13 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (32 lines × 2 locations) src/app/concepts/[id]/page.tsx:9 — src/app/concepts/[id]/page.tsx:9 · src/app/concepts/[id]/types.ts:1 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (30 lines × 4 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (30 lines × 4 locations) src/app/freelancers/page.tsx:92 — src/app/freelancers/page.tsx:92 · src/app/mvp-specialists/page.tsx:92 · src/app/product-managers/page.tsx:92 · src/app/startups/page.tsx:89 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (29 lines × 2 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/marketing/social_media_campaigns/components/SectionLongFormContent.tsx:46 — src/app/ideas/[id]/marketing/social_media_campaigns/components/SectionLongFormContent.tsx:46 · src/app/ideas/[id]/marketing/social_media_campaigns/components/SectionShortFormContent.tsx:46 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 3 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (29 lines × 3 locations) src/idea/events/subscribers/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:45 — src/idea/events/subscribers/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:45 · src/idea/events/subscribers/MarketAnalysisEvaluationSubscriber.ts:29 · src/idea/events/subscribers/PotentialNamesEvaluationSubscriber.ts:33 — the 3 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 6 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (25 lines × 6 locations) src/app/ideas/[id]/components/SectionExistingSolutions.tsx:13 — src/app/ideas/[id]/components/SectionExistingSolutions.tsx:13 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/SectionMainChallenges.tsx:13 · src/app/ideas/[id]/components/SectionOpportunities.tsx:13 · src/app/ideas/[id]/swot/SectionOpportunities.tsx:13 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (22 lines × 2 locations) src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluator.ts:46 — src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/CompetitorAnalysisEvaluator.ts:46 · src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/MarketAnalysisEvaluator.ts:18 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function New (cyclomatic 31, cognitive 30) · ×1
  • Complex function New (cyclomatic 31, cognitive 30) src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:81 — New has cyclomatic complexity 31 and cognitive complexity 30; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function New (cyclomatic 28, cognitive 27) · ×1
  • Complex function New (cyclomatic 28, cognitive 27) src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:32 — New has cyclomatic complexity 28 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function getById (cyclomatic 27, cognitive 27) · ×1
  • Complex function getById (cyclomatic 27, cognitive 27) src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:318 — getById has cyclomatic complexity 27 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function New (cyclomatic 21, cognitive 22) · ×1
  • Complex function New (cyclomatic 21, cognitive 22) src/idea/domain/ProductName.ts:12 — New has cyclomatic complexity 21 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function New (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 19) · ×1
  • Complex function New (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 19) src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:14 — New has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 19; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:60 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function New (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 12) · ×1
  • Complex function New (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 12) src/concept/domain/TargetAudience.ts:17 — New has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function evaluateConcept (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 16) · ×1
  • Complex function evaluateConcept (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 16) src/concept/adapters/OpenAIService/ConceptEvaluator.ts:112 — evaluateConcept has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function GET (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) · ×1
  • Complex function GET (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) REDACTED:7 — GET has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function handle (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) · ×1
  • Complex function handle (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) src/idea/app/queries/GetIdea.ts:177 — handle has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function getById (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 11) · ×1
  • Complex function getById (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 11) src/concept/adapters/ConceptRepositorySQLite.ts:154 — getById has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function DefineConceptForm (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 9) · ×1
  • Complex function DefineConceptForm (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 9) src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:213 — DefineConceptForm has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 9; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R3 · Large Files · src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx · ×1
  • src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx: 919 lines of code src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx:1 — src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx has 919 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
R3 · Large Files · src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts · ×1
  • src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts: 762 lines of code src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:1 — src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts has 762 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
R3 · Large Files · src/components/ConceptForm.tsx · ×1
  • src/components/ConceptForm.tsx: 602 lines of code src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:1 — src/components/ConceptForm.tsx has 602 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.
R4 · Test Coverage · No test rig can mount a component in this workspace · ×1
  • No test rig can mount a component in this workspace jest.config.ts:1 — jest.config.ts declares environment "node", and no package here declares a DOM implementation (jsdom / happy-dom), a component testing library or a browser runner — so none of the 150 unreached component module(s) can be tested as written, however the suite is authored: src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx, src/components/ConceptForm.tsx, src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx, src/components/HypothesisGenerator.tsx, src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx, src/app/template.tsx and 144 more. Add a DOM environment and a component testing library (for example jsdom + @testing-library, or the runner's browser mode), then test the components. Reported once because these files share one cause, not one omission each.
R5 · Dependency Freshness · Dependency Freshness · ×1
  • Dependency Freshness — 41 outdated package(s); JS/npm CVEs scored in D30
Minor — 123 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×87
  • Orphaned file src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/idea/app/queries/GetIdea.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/concept/adapters/OpenAIService/ConceptEvaluator.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/components/HypothesisGenerator.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/template.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/idea/adapters/OpenAIService/TestingPlanEvaluator.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/idea/domain/Aggregate.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/hypotheses/new/page.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/concept/adapters/ConceptRepositorySQLite.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/idea/service/Service.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/idea/domain/TestingPlan.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/setup/page.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/hypotheses/page.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/about/page.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/terms/page.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/tools/page.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/concepts/[id]/ProblemRequiresChanges.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/concept/domain/Aggregate.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/hypotheses/[hypothesisId]/experiments/[experimentId]/recommendations/page.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/page.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/ideas/[id]/two_week_testing_plan/SectionSoftLaunchStrategy.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/tools/hypothesis-generator/[id]/page.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/app/developers/page.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • + 62 more in this group — see findings.md.
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×11
  • Duplicated predicate src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts:68 — `!Array.isArray(opportunities) || opportunities.length === 0` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/idea/domain/ContextAnalysis.ts, src/idea/domain/SWOTAnalysis.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:54 — `!Array.isArray(strengths) || strengths.length === 0` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts, src/idea/domain/SWOTAnalysis.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:58 — `!Array.isArray(weaknesses) || weaknesses.length === 0` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts, src/idea/domain/SWOTAnalysis.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/concept/domain/Persona.ts:11 — `!cleanValue || cleanValue.length < 64 || cleanValue.length > 2048` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/concept/domain/Persona.ts, src/concept/domain/Problem.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:29 — `!productName || productName.trim() === ''` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts, src/idea/domain/ProductName.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts:46 — `!valueProposition || valueProposition.trim() === ''` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/idea/domain/Competitor.ts, src/idea/domain/ElevatorPitch.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/SectionElevatorPitch.tsx:47 — `'speechSynthesis' in window && isSpeaking` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/app/ideas/[id]/elevator_pitches/SectionElevatorPitch.tsx, src/app/ideas/[id]/value_proposition/SectionHowToPitch.tsx. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/common/client/Concept/Service.ts:142 — `(error as Error).message || 'An unknown error occurred.'` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/common/client/Concept/Service.ts, src/common/client/Idea/Service.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx:115 — `errorData.error || 'Something went wrong.'` appears character-identically in 4 files — src/app/concepts/[id]/audiences/TargetAudiences.tsx, src/app/ideas/[id]/IdeaAnalysisReport.tsx, src/app/ideas/[id]/marketing/social_media_campaigns/SocialMediaCampaigns.tsx, src/components/ConceptForm.tsx. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/app/ideas/[id]/competitors/SectionCompetitor.tsx:43 — `numberEmojis[position as keyof typeof numberEmojis] || '📈'` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/app/ideas/[id]/competitors/SectionCompetitor.tsx, src/app/ideas/[id]/product_names/SectionProductName.tsx. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/idea/domain/SWOTAnalysis.ts:20 — `typeof item !== 'string' || item.trim() === ''` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/idea/domain/SWOTAnalysis.ts, src/idea/domain/SocialMediaCampaigns.ts. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×10
  • Deprecated: @humanwhocodes/config-array REDACTED:1233 — @humanwhocodes/config-array 0.13.0 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Use @eslint/config-array instead". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
  • Deprecated: @humanwhocodes/object-schema REDACTED:1263 — @humanwhocodes/object-schema 2.0.3 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Use @eslint/object-schema instead". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
  • Deprecated: glob REDACTED:1986 — glob 7.2.3 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Old versions of glob are not supported, and contain widely publicized security vulnerabilities, which have been fixed in the current version. Please update. Support for old versions may be purchased (at exorbitant rates) by contacting i@izs.me". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
  • Deprecated: inflight REDACTED:8020 — inflight 1.0.6 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "This module is not supported, and leaks memory. Do not use it. Check out lru-cache if you want a good and tested way to coalesce async requests by a key value, which is much more comprehensive and powerful.". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
  • Deprecated: glob REDACTED:8806 — glob 7.2.3 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Old versions of glob are not supported, and contain widely publicized security vulnerabilities, which have been fixed in the current version. Please update. Support for old versions may be purchased (at exorbitant rates) by contacting i@izs.me". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
  • Deprecated: glob REDACTED:9146 — glob 7.2.3 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Old versions of glob are not supported, and contain widely publicized security vulnerabilities, which have been fixed in the current version. Please update. Support for old versions may be purchased (at exorbitant rates) by contacting i@izs.me". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
  • Deprecated: rimraf REDACTED:11248 — rimraf 3.0.2 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Rimraf versions prior to v4 are no longer supported". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
  • Deprecated: glob REDACTED:11265 — glob 7.2.3 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Old versions of glob are not supported, and contain widely publicized security vulnerabilities, which have been fixed in the current version. Please update. Support for old versions may be purchased (at exorbitant rates) by contacting i@izs.me". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
  • Deprecated: string-similarity REDACTED:11736 — string-similarity 4.0.4 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Package no longer supported. Contact Support at https://www.npmjs.com/support for more info.". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
  • Deprecated: glob REDACTED:12339 — glob 7.2.3 is resolved in REDACTED and is marked deprecated by its publisher: "Old versions of glob are not supported, and contain widely publicized security vulnerabilities, which have been fixed in the current version. Please update. Support for old versions may be purchased (at exorbitant rates) by contacting i@izs.me". This repository does not declare it — a direct dependency pulls it in, so the move is to upgrade or replace that dependency.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated (npm) · ×3
  • Outdated (npm): @sentry/nextjs REDACTED:27 — @sentry/nextjs is pinned at 8.54.0; registry.npmjs.org publishes 11.8.0 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): openai REDACTED:33 — openai is pinned at 4.81.0; registry.npmjs.org publishes 7.41.0 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): uuid REDACTED:37 — uuid is pinned at 11.0.3; registry.npmjs.org publishes 14.0.3 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×3
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Most significant orphaned file · ×3
  • Most significant orphaned file src/components/IdeaPDFReport.tsx:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Most significant orphaned file src/components/ConceptForm.tsx:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Most significant orphaned file src/idea/adapters/IdeaRepositorySQLite.ts:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
AC7 · A11y enforcement · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1
  • Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — An a11y linter is configured (Documented) but there's no automated a11y test or CI gate. Add jest-axe to verify at runtime, then gate it in CI. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 132 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
  • Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (19445 LoC, 281 module-visible types across 80 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.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 90 of 90 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 90 separate risks. Counted over 90 of the 282 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async functions that make a request accept an AbortSignal · ×1
  • Not all async functions that make a request accept an AbortSignal — Only 0/3 async functions that make a cancellable request (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch) accept an AbortSignal or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a page navigated away from, an unmounted component, a timed-out job. Take a `signal` (or an options object that carries one) and hand it to the request; where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
X5 · Nullable reference types · Null assertions (`!`) reduce the strict null checking score · ×1
  • Null assertions (`!`) reduce the strict null checking score — ~0.1 `!` null assertions per 1k TypeScript source lines — 2 assertion(s) across the 22703 source line(s) of the 275 TypeScript file(s) read, which is the only code the operator asserts anything in (a `!` in a `.js` file is not this operator and was not counted, and one in a file whose null checking is off silences nothing). Densest: src/concept/adapters/EventBusInMemory.ts (1), src/idea/adapters/EventBusInMemory.ts (1). Each one tells the compiler to trust the author about null, suppressing the very diagnostic `strictNullChecks` exists to produce.
Minor — 10 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated (npm) · ×10
  • Outdated (npm): @prisma/client — @prisma/client is pinned at 5.22.0; registry.npmjs.org publishes 7.10.1 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): @react-pdf/renderer — @react-pdf/renderer is pinned at 4.1.4; registry.npmjs.org publishes 4.9.0 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): @tailwindcss/forms — @tailwindcss/forms is pinned at 0.5.9; registry.npmjs.org publishes 0.5.11 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): ioredis — ioredis is pinned at 5.4.1; registry.npmjs.org publishes 6.0.0 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): next — next is pinned at 14.2.23; registry.npmjs.org publishes 16.4.2 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): next-plausible — next-plausible is pinned at 3.12.4; registry.npmjs.org publishes 4.0.0 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): next-themes — next-themes is pinned at 0.4.3; registry.npmjs.org publishes 0.4.6 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): react — react is pinned at 18.3.1; registry.npmjs.org publishes 19.3.1 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): react-dom — react-dom is pinned at 18.3.1; registry.npmjs.org publishes 19.3.1 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
  • Outdated (npm): sharp — sharp is pinned at 0.33.5; registry.npmjs.org publishes 0.35.5 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-b36abfc715054e0bb67f4d1c1857b27f/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-b36abfc715054e0bb67f4d1c1857b27f/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .21artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update44artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet . --skip-check-update7artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a160a7-9524-72dc-80de-7b5b76d5ec40 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 48 · Warnings: 235 · Recommendations: 123 · Info: 10 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 21-10-2026 @ 22:49 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.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md