sparkling-water — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

⚠ A critical security finding caps this grade — resolve it before relying on the score below; see the Security lens.

The system holds a 62% health score, indicating a workable asset carrying real risk. While the code is clean and the architecture is sound, the organization lacks the institutional knowledge to sustain it. This gap threatens delivery speed and increases the cost of future changes, as the team cannot easily onboard new engineers or understand past design choices.

The value at stake is moderate, with a rebuild effort estimated at roughly 0.4 person-years, or about €61,000. This is not a massive legacy monolith, but it is substantial enough that losing it would be costly. The code itself is high-quality, with no boilerplate and strong structural integrity, meaning the technical debt is not in the syntax but in the understanding of why it was built this way.

The primary risk is Maturity Drift. With a maturity score of 55%, the system suffers from a lack of documented context and living knowledge. This is not a code problem but a people problem. Without clear records of decisions, new team members face a steep learning curve, leading to slower onboarding and a higher likelihood of introducing defects. The codebase is dormant, meaning there is no active community of practice to validate changes, increasing the risk of silent failures.

A secondary concern is Production Readiness. At 59%, the system lacks robust operational safeguards. While not critically broken, the absence of reliable test execution and clear operational guides means that outages or regressions are harder to detect and resolve quickly. This exposes the business to reliability risks and potential security gaps, as security testing is also not fully measured or verified.

What is genuinely good is the Code Health and Architecture. The code is clean, well-structured, and free of technical rot. This provides a solid foundation for improvement. The architecture is sound, meaning changes do not ripple uncontrollably. This is a significant strength, as it means remediation efforts will be efficient and effective.

The first focus should be capturing significant decisions. Recording key design choices in a centralized, discoverable format will immediately improve maturity and reduce onboarding time. This is the highest-leverage action, as it addresses the root cause of the maturity gap. Resolving orphaned files and adding a quick-start guide are secondary but important steps to stabilize the system.

Code Health 94% ★ Exemplary Architecture 92% ★ Exemplary Maturity 55% Adequate · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 59% Adequate · gated by P3 Security 62% Adequate · gated by D31

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

Maturity 55% · 47% weightReadiness 59% · 26% weightSecurity 62% · 14% weightArchitecture 92% · 8% weightCode Health 94% · 4% weight

Raise Maturity 55 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 62 → ~66.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (2+)

2 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-11) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) extensions/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/extensions/internals/ConvertCategoricalToStringColumnsTask.java
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) py-scoring/src/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2ODataFrameConverters.py

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €20,000–€100,000

Cost to rebuild	€20,000–€100,000 (0.2–0.6 person-years (338–1,071 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.8× (at 62% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.4 person-years of build effort (about ~€61,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 55% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — vertical slice × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with SharedBackendConf.scala, H2OMOJOModel.scala, H2OContext.scala.

+7.2 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness

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

+6.6 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

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

+7.6 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Medium asset (~0.4 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 55%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.4 person-years rebuild (35,688 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 55%

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

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.

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

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

Architecture — module dependency matrix

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

190 modules, 146 dependencies. 3 dependency cycles across 13 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 150 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.utils.SupportedTypes	2 ai.h2o.sparkling.booklet.generation.ConfigurationsTemplate	3 ai.h2o.sparkling.utils.DataFrameSerializationWrappers	4 org.apache.spark.expose	5 org.apache.spark.ml.util.expose.DefaultParamsReader	6 ai.h2o.sparkling.api.generation.common	7 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.converters	8 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.utils	11 org.apache.spark.h2o.ui	14 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend	15 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.H2OSparkEntity	16 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.external	17 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.internal	18 ai.h2o.sparkling	21 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.api	22 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.utils	29 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.params	30 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.metrics	31 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.models	32 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.algos	34 ai.h2o.sparkling.benchmarks	36 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.features	37 ai.h2o.sparkling.benchmarks.Runner	39 ai.h2o.sparkling.repl
1 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.utils.SupportedTypes
2 ai.h2o.sparkling.booklet.generation.ConfigurationsTemplate
3 ai.h2o.sparkling.utils.DataFrameSerializationWrappers
4 org.apache.spark.expose
5 org.apache.spark.ml.util.expose.DefaultParamsReader
6 ai.h2o.sparkling.api.generation.common		3
7 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.converters		5		2										10
8 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.utils	4	4		5						4				11
9 ai.h2o.sparkling.doc.generation		2
10 ai.h2o.sparkling.utils			2	2
11 org.apache.spark.h2o.ui		2		2
12 ai.h2o.sparkling.api.generation						3
13 ai.h2o.sparkling.api.generation.scala		1				20
14 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend	3	6		1	1		1	1						12
15 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.H2OSparkEntity										1
16 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.external		2		3				1		3				6
17 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.internal		1								2				1
18 ai.h2o.sparkling		2		1			2	2	1	4		1	1
19 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.H2ORDD		2									1
20 ai.h2o.sparkling.H2OContext										1				1
21 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.api														2
22 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.utils		1		2	2			1						1					1
23 org.apache.spark.h2o.backends.internal		1		2				2		2				5
24 water.webserver.jetty9.SparklingWaterJettyHelper		1												1
25 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.api.dataframes		1						1							1
26 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.api.h2oframes		1						2							1
27 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.api.options		1													1
28 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.api.rdds		1						1						1	1
29 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.params			2	11				1						22		1		1	8	7
30 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.metrics				1													3		1
31 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.models		2		5				2								1	22	2
32 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.algos		4						5						8		2	5		13
33 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.internals		1						1											2
34 ai.h2o.sparkling.benchmarks		2						1						7		2			4	1			2
35 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.algos.H2OGridSearch		1																		1
36 ai.h2o.sparkling.ml.features								1						1		1	8		5	1
37 ai.h2o.sparkling.benchmarks.Runner		1																			1
38 ai.h2o.sparkling.examples																			2	2		1
39 ai.h2o.sparkling.repl		2		1																			2
40 ai.h2o.sparkling.backend.api.scalainterpreter								3							1									2

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

At a glance — Code Health · 94% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Scala Cyclomatic Complexity 9.0 D2 · Scala Cognitive Complexity 8.1 D3 · Scala God Classes 9.3 D4 · Scala Code Duplication 9.6 D17 · Scala Explicit Debt 10.0

At a glance — Architecture · 92% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Scala Coupling 10.0 D6 · Scala Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.7 D26 · Scala Project Cohesion 8.2 D35 · Scala Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.4 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 55% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Scala Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · Scala Documentation Quality 9.4 D21 · Scala Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.3

The Ugly

D20 · Scala ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · Scala Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 59% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

The Good

D9 · Scala Test Distribution 10.0 D13 · Scala REDACTED Scanning 10.0 D14 · Scala License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P2 · Repo Observability 6.5

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 62% · Adequate · gated by D31 ·

The Good

D28 · Scala Secrets (history) 9.0 D44 · Scala Platform End-of-Life 10.0

The Bad

D29 · Scala Static Analysis (SAST) 6.0

The Ugly

D31 · Scala IaC & Container Security 0.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	73	High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection	6	High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	2	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by documenting key architectural decisions in a dedicated, discoverable location and adding a quick-start section to the root README to support new contributors. Next, address knowledge freshness by resolving the three most significant orphaned files, specifically SharedBackendConf.scala, H2OMOJOModel.scala, and H2OContext.scala. Finally, establish a baseline for security and performance by running local static analysis tools like scalafix or semgrep, ensuring these checks are integrated into the first CI workflow to prevent regressions.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with SharedBackendConf.scala, H2OMOJOModel.scala, H2OContext.scala.	+7.2 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+6.6 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+7.6 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.	+3.6 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+7.1 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Run what this repository's stack ships: scalafix or scapegoat — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+5.5 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.	+5.3 pts	Medium	Observability
Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step for your stack, and gate merges on it.	+2.5 pts	Medium	CI/CD gates

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 62 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 5% slop · 34% mixed · 61% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.0	Slop	IaC & Container Security: Critical IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.0	Slop	IaC & Container Security: Critical IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.0	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Critical IaC: REDACTED
py/tests/integration/external_only/test_security.py	7.0	Mixed	Test Reliability: Test declared unreliable: testPamAuthWithCorrectCredentials
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/external/ExternalH2OBackend.scala	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf (cyclomatic 27)
scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OMOJOPipelineModel.scala	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: H2OMOJOPipelineModel.rowsToMojoFrame (cyclomatic 18)
core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/SharedBackendUtils.scala	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: SharedBackendUtils.checkAndUpdateConf (cyclomatic 16)
core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OContext.scala	7.8	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: H2OContext.createHeartBeatEventThread (cognitive 20)
doc/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/doc/generation/Runner.scala	7.8	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: Runner.main (cognitive 19)
core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/SharedBackendConf.scala	7.8	Mixed	God Classes: TooManyMethods: SharedBackendConf
ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/HyperParamsParam.scala	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OFrame.scala	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2)
core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)
ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (15 lines × 2)
examples/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/examples/ChicagoCrimeApp.scala	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)
REDACTED	7.9	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED

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 — 26

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 — 94

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 — 31

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

Could not be resolved — 51

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. 28 of 32 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — 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 — 32 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D13D14D15D17D19D20D21D26D28D29D31D34D35D44AX10AX3AX5M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P6

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 144 of 151 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0e93a-fca4-77b9-9ced-d3adcca1c519.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.scala, .py) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`addSbtPlugin("org.scoverage" % "sbt-scoverage" % "<version>")` in `project/plugins.sbt`, then `sbt clean coverage test coverageReport`, or `coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (`addSbtPlugin("org.scoverage" % "sbt-scoverage" % "<version>")` in `project/plugins.sbt`, then `sbt clean coverage test coverageReport`, or `coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This repository declares 2 of its own test(s) unreliable. The built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem (.scala, .py), so the suite was not re-run and no reliability score is given — these are the repository's own declarations, not our measurement.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Dependency Hygiene ran out of its 5-minute budget before it had finished, so what it reports here is a floor rather than a complete count. The rows above are real and stand; what is not known is how many more there are. This is a limit of the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
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. All 206 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness). Counted over 162 of the 608 production source files in this repository: 402 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 44 have no attributable history left to measure.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (assembly-extensions/build.gradle), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX2 Stateful singletons — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX7 Slice cohesion — 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. 7 slice(s) were resolved from namespaces or project layout, but not one field or property type reference in them resolved to a type this analyzer had read. Cross-slice coupling is detected by following those references, so scoring the set anyway would report every slice as perfectly cohesive on the strength of having followed nothing.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, or a Dockerfile. None was found, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P1 CI/CD gates — 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. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
P10 Library API & versioning — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads NuGet packaging and C# public API only, and no .NET project was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Those languages colour their functions async, so blocking inside them is the same defect this card counts elsewhere, but their blocking vocabulary is not modelled yet. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the code is free of it.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X10 Duplicated predicate — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

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

The LLM boundary

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

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.0 / 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 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf at 27. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being ProblemType.distributionToProblemType at 17 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/algos/ProblemType.scala (ProblemType.distributionToProblemType at 17). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf (cyclomatic 27)core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/external/ExternalH2OBackend.scala:177

RowConverter.toH2ORowData (cyclomatic 21)scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/RowConverter.scala:35

H2OMOJOPipelineModel.rowsToMojoFrame (cyclomatic 18)scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OMOJOPipelineModel.scala:152

Writer.sparkRowToH2ORow (cyclomatic 17)core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/Writer.scala:130

SharedBackendUtils.checkAndUpdateConf (cyclomatic 16)core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/SharedBackendUtils.scala:51

What to do

Resolve the 1 ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf (cyclomatic 27) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ExternalH2OBackend.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 RowConverter.toH2ORowData (cyclomatic 21) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with RowConverter.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 H2OMOJOPipelineModel.rowsToMojoFrame (cyclomatic 18) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with H2OMOJOPipelineModel.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.1 / 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 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf at 51.

ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf (cognitive 51)core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/external/ExternalH2OBackend.scala:177

SharedBackendUtils.checkAndUpdateConf (cognitive 22)core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/SharedBackendUtils.scala:51

H2OContext.createHeartBeatEventThread (cognitive 20)core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OContext.scala:335

Runner.main (cognitive 19)doc/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/doc/generation/Runner.scala:39

ChunkAutoBufferWriter.writeChunk (cognitive 19)extensions/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/extensions/serde/ChunkAutoBufferWriter.scala:33

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

What to do

Resolve the 1 ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf (cognitive 51) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ExternalH2OBackend.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 SharedBackendUtils.checkAndUpdateConf (cognitive 22) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with SharedBackendUtils.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 H2OContext.createHeartBeatEventThread (cognitive 20) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with H2OContext.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.3 / 10Stronggated by 6 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: SharedBackendConf · ×5core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/SharedBackendConf.scala:28

FileTooLong: backend/SharedBackendConf.scalacore/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/SharedBackendConf.scala

What to do

Resolve the 5 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with SharedBackendConf.scala, ExternalBackendConf.scala, H2OTypeConverters.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with SharedBackendConf.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.6 / 10Stronggated by 33 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

32 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted. 3 of the 33 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×5api-generation/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/api/generation/scala/ParametersTemplateBase.scala:61

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OFrame.scala:245

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×3api-generation/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/api/generation/python/MOJOModelTemplate.scala:34

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:56

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:43

+ 16 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ParametersTemplateBase.scala, HasGamColsOnMOJO.scala, SchemaUtils.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with H2OFrame.scala, ChunkServlet.scala, DataFramesServlet.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with MOJOModelTemplate.scala, SparkSpecificUtils.scala, H2ODataFrameConverters.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

25 production modules (Gradle+Python), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; edges a convention plugin adds from buildSrc or build-logic are not visible there; 0 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 12 of the 25 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or are not Gradle/Maven modules or Cargo crates).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 42 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: H2OTargetEncoder (LCOM4 4)ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/features/H2OTargetEncoder.scala:34

What to do

Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with H2OTargetEncoder.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test 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

260 test methods: 246 unit, 14 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Python suite contributes 260 test function(s) across 38 file(s) declaring at least one — every `def test…` in a file pytest or unittest would collect, which is those frameworks' own definition of a case; a parametrize table counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is read from file names and paths only.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · REDACTED 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

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 3 declared JVM dependency artifact(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from the POMs Maven Central publishes, over the coordinates this repository's 26 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) declare with a version resolvable from the manifest itself — the same declaration-site closure this analysis reads for dependency currency. The JVM has no lockfile a checkout is guaranteed to carry, so this is deliberately NOT the transitive closure. 99 further coordinate(s) are declared with no version at the declaration site — inherited from a parent POM, a BOM or an unresolved Gradle version reference — and are NOT graded: this verdict covers what the checkout pins, not the full transitive graph. 1 of them resolve to no licence at all on Central, even through their parent POMs; that is missing data, not a violation, and none of them is charged.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 3 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 deducted task-comment markers across 35688 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. 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 · ×3ml/src/test/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/algos/H2OAutoMLTestSuite.scala:69

What to do

Resolve the 3 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with H2OAutoMLTestSuite.scala, H2OSupervisedMOJOModelTestSuite.scala, H2OMOJOModelTestSuite.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README (about.rst) gives a strong overview of Sparkling Water as an H2O+Spark machine learning platform and its licensing. It documents the Getting Started path with links to H2O Sparkling Water documentation for every Spark version from 3.0 through 3.5, plus download binaries for each release. The examples/README (available Demos And Applications) and py-scoring/README (scoring MOJO models) are READMEs of their own directories, not the repository root; they document what those directories provide without covering the repository's scope. A dedicated architecture/design doc set is present but not shown in this summary. The changelog documents releases with download links for each Spark version and a migration guide between versions (3.42 to 3.44), which is excellent. This repository's documentation is comprehensive and well-structured: a single README (rsparkling.rst) gives an overview of what rsparkling is, its purpose, and installation steps for Sparklyr and Spark; the document continues with a detailed architecture section covering internal/backend mode selection, memory tuning, YARN-specific configuration, and deployment guides for AWS EMR, Azure HDInsight, and Databricks. A separate configuration directory provides thorough tuning guidance (spark.locality.wait, PermGen sizing) and an explicit backend guide. The README also links to a typical use case and ends with a security note about the SPARK_PUBLIC_DNS flag.

Documentation: no project overview · ×3README.rst

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 of 11 build units (Gradle) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split core

What to do

Resolve the 1 Split core finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)9.0 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

6 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 3 medium, 1 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterInfoPage.scala`, `gradlew` (line 177) — 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

What to do

Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

73 finding(s): 4 critical, 17 high, 35 medium, 17 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 35 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (19), REDACTED (14), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (35 warning-level).
Resolve the 17 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (14), REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 Critical IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge 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

206 of 206 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/SharedBackendConf.scala. Counted over 206 of the 608 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Most significant orphaned file · ×3core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/SharedBackendConf.scala

Dormant codebase

What to do

Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with SharedBackendConf.scala, H2OMOJOModel.scala, H2OContext.scala. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition8.4 / 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.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 22 of 26 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.7 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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.

What to do

Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step for your stack, and gate merges on it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 4/8 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `api-generation`, `benchmarks`, `booklet`, `doc`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry-java or Micrometer) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add scalafix or scapegoat (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Run what this repository's stack ships: scalafix or scapegoat — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	94%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Architecture	92%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	55%	Adequate — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	59%	Adequate — gated by P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	62%	Adequate — gated by D31	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.

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

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

D11 Test Reliability — 2 observation(s) recorded · This repository declares 2 of its own test(s) unreliable. The built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem (.scala, .py), so the suite was not re-run and no reliability score is given — these are the repository's own declarations, not our measurement.

Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 82 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — 7 slice(s) were identified, but none of their field/property type references could be resolved to a type in this repository, so no cross-slice reference could be followed. This is a limitation of the analyzer's type resolution on this language, not a finding about the repository.
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
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~14532 lines of test source are present (.scala, .py) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency Hygiene incomplete (time budget)
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
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.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
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.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (1 of 2 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 79 value object(s)
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P10 Library API & versioning — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JVM, JavaScript/TypeScript, Python source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`addSbtPlugin("org.scoverage" % "sbt-scoverage" % "<version>")` in `project/plugins.sbt`, then `sbt clean coverage test coverageReport`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Sync-over-async was not assessed: this repository's async code is written in Scala, whose blocking calls this check does not model yet. That is a gap in the analyzer's language reach, not a finding about your code.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 26 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×17

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

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Critical IaC · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D11 · Test Reliability · Test declared unreliable · ×2

Test declared unreliable: testPamAuthWithCorrectCredentials py/tests/integration/external_only/test_security.py:74 — This test is disabled or skipped with a reason naming unreliability — the repository's own words: "still unstable, to be fixed and unignored next release (SW-2779)". A test that is skipped for flakiness is neither passing nor protecting the code it covers; either stabilise it or delete it, but do not leave it disabled indefinitely. (Found by reading the repository's own test source — the suite itself was not re-run, since the reliability runner does not support this ecosystem.)
Test declared unreliable: testPamAuthWithWrongCredentials py/tests/integration/external_only/test_security.py:87 — This test is disabled or skipped with a reason naming unreliability — the repository's own words: "still unstable, to be fixed and unignored next release (SW-2779)". A test that is skipped for flakiness is neither passing nor protecting the code it covers; either stabilise it or delete it, but do not leave it disabled indefinitely. (Found by reading the repository's own test source — the suite itself was not re-run, since the reliability runner does not support this ecosystem.)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 94 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×35

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 10 more in this group — see findings.md.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×5

TooManyMethods: SharedBackendConf core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/SharedBackendConf.scala:28 — TooManyMethods — 142 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 112 over it, 4.73× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ExternalBackendConf core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/external/ExternalBackendConf.scala:32 — TooManyMethods — 69 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 39 over it, 2.30× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: H2OTypeConverters py-scoring/src/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/H2OTypeConverters.py:26 — TooManyMethods — 46 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 16 over it, 1.53× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: H2OContext core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OContext.scala:64 — TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: H2OMOJOModel scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OMOJOModel.scala:49 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) api-generation/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/api/generation/scala/ParametersTemplateBase.scala:61 — api-generation/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/api/generation/scala/ParametersTemplateBase.scala:61-69 | api-generation/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/api/generation/scala/ParametersTemplateBase.scala:75-83 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `api-generation/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/api/generation/scala/ParametersTemplateBase.scala:61` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/HasGamColsOnMOJO.scala:33 — scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/HasGamColsOnMOJO.scala:33-41 | scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/HasIgnoredColsOnMOJO.scala:30-38 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) utils/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/utils/SchemaUtils.scala:249 — utils/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/utils/SchemaUtils.scala:249-257 | utils/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/utils/SchemaUtils.scala:267-275 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `utils/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/utils/SchemaUtils.scala:249` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala:33 — core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala:33-41 | core/src/main/scala_spark_2.2/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala:33-41 — before extracting anything, compare `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala` and `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.2/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala:33` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala:90 — core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala:90-98 | core/src/main/scala_spark_2.2/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala:90-98 — before extracting anything, compare `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala` and `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.2/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×3

TodoComment ml/src/test/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/algos/H2OAutoMLTestSuite.scala:69 — // TODO: This needs to be fixed in H2O-3 AutoML backend
TodoComment ml/src/test/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OSupervisedMOJOModelTestSuite.scala:170 — // TODO: Enable test once PUBDEV-7067 is resolved.
TodoComment ml/src/test/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OMOJOModelTestSuite.scala:113 — //TODO temporary Ignore - failing on Spark 3.4 - StructType incompatible class change — 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.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OFrame.scala:245 — core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OFrame.scala:245-251 | core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OFrame.scala:276-282 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) extensions/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/extensions/rest/api/ChunkServlet.scala:90 — extensions/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/extensions/rest/api/ChunkServlet.scala:90-96 | extensions/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/extensions/rest/api/ChunkServlet.scala:162-168 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/api/dataframes/DataFramesServlet.scala:32 — core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/api/dataframes/DataFramesServlet.scala:32-38 | core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/api/rdds/RDDsServlet.scala:42-48 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) api-generation/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/api/generation/python/MOJOModelTemplate.scala:34 — api-generation/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/api/generation/python/MOJOModelTemplate.scala:34-39 | api-generation/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/api/generation/scala/MOJOModelTemplate.scala:35-40 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala:39 — core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala:39-44 | core/src/main/scala_spark_others/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala:50-55 — before extracting anything, compare `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala` and `core/src/main/scala_spark_others/org/apache/spark/h2o/SparkSpecificUtils.scala` as WHOLE FILES: 97% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) py-scoring/src/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2ODataFrameConverters.py:40 — py-scoring/src/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2ODataFrameConverters.py:40-45 | py-scoring/src/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/H2OTypeConverters.py:557-562 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:56 — ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:56-70 | scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:57-71 — before extracting anything, compare `ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala` and `scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 36 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:56` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) core/src/integTest/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/PamProxyOnlyModeAuthCustomUserTestSuite.scala:34 — core/src/integTest/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/PamProxyOnlyModeAuthCustomUserTestSuite.scala:34-48 | core/src/integTest/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/PamProxyOnlyModeAuthTestSuite.scala:34-48 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `core/src/integTest/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/PamProxyOnlyModeAuthCustomUserTestSuite.scala:34` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `core/src/integTest/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/PamProxyOnlyModeAuthCustomUserTestSuite.scala:49` calls `set` and `core/src/integTest/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/PamProxyOnlyModeAuthTestSuite.scala:49` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:43 — ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:43-52 | scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:44-53 — before extracting anything, compare `ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala` and `scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 36 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusPlugin.scala:29 — core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusPlugin.scala:29-38 | core/src/main/scala_spark_others/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusPlugin.scala:29-38 — before extracting anything, compare `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusPlugin.scala` and `core/src/main/scala_spark_others/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusPlugin.scala` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/ReflectionUtils.scala:183 — core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/ReflectionUtils.scala:183-190 | core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/ReflectionUtils.scala:201-208 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/ReflectionUtils.scala:183` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) extensions/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/extensions/internals/ConvertCategoricalToStringColumnsTask.java:39 — extensions/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/extensions/internals/ConvertCategoricalToStringColumnsTask.java:39-46 | extensions/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/extensions/internals/UpdateCategoricalIndicesTask.java:48-55 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/converters/SupportedDataset.scala:145 — core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/converters/SupportedDataset.scala:145-151 | core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/converters/SupportedDataset.scala:161-167 | core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/converters/SupportedDataset.scala:170-176 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/converters/SupportedRDD.scala:168 — core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/converters/SupportedRDD.scala:168-174 | core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/converters/SupportedRDD.scala:190-196 | core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/converters/SupportedRDD.scala:198-204 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf (cyclomatic 27) · ×1

ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf (cyclomatic 27) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/external/ExternalH2OBackend.scala:177 — ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RowConverter.toH2ORowData (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

RowConverter.toH2ORowData (cyclomatic 21) scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/RowConverter.scala:35 — RowConverter.toH2ORowData has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · H2OMOJOPipelineModel.rowsToMojoFrame (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

H2OMOJOPipelineModel.rowsToMojoFrame (cyclomatic 18) scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OMOJOPipelineModel.scala:152 — H2OMOJOPipelineModel.rowsToMojoFrame has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Writer.sparkRowToH2ORow (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

Writer.sparkRowToH2ORow (cyclomatic 17) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/Writer.scala:130 — Writer.sparkRowToH2ORow has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SharedBackendUtils.checkAndUpdateConf (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

SharedBackendUtils.checkAndUpdateConf (cyclomatic 16) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/SharedBackendUtils.scala:51 — SharedBackendUtils.checkAndUpdateConf has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf (cognitive 51) · ×1

ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf (cognitive 51) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/external/ExternalH2OBackend.scala:177 — ExternalH2OBackend.checkAndUpdateConf has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (43 pts), boolean chains 8 (nesting depth added 23). 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 · SharedBackendUtils.checkAndUpdateConf (cognitive 22) · ×1

SharedBackendUtils.checkAndUpdateConf (cognitive 22) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/SharedBackendUtils.scala:51 — SharedBackendUtils.checkAndUpdateConf has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (19 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · H2OContext.createHeartBeatEventThread (cognitive 20) · ×1

H2OContext.createHeartBeatEventThread (cognitive 20) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OContext.scala:335 — H2OContext.createHeartBeatEventThread has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Runner.main (cognitive 19) · ×1

Runner.main (cognitive 19) doc/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/doc/generation/Runner.scala:39 — Runner.main has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 5 (10 pts), if/else 5 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChunkAutoBufferWriter.writeChunk (cognitive 19) · ×1

ChunkAutoBufferWriter.writeChunk (cognitive 19) extensions/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/extensions/serde/ChunkAutoBufferWriter.scala:33 — ChunkAutoBufferWriter.writeChunk has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Runner.getParamClasses (cognitive 17) · ×1

Runner.getParamClasses (cognitive 17) doc/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/doc/generation/Runner.scala:109 — Runner.getParamClasses has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · H2OContext.__prepareSparkDataForConversion (cognitive 17) · ×1

H2OContext.__prepareSparkDataForConversion (cognitive 17) py/src/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OContext.py:209 — H2OContext.__prepareSparkDataForConversion has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · H2OMOJOPipelineModel.rowsToMojoFrame (cognitive 16) · ×1

H2OMOJOPipelineModel.rowsToMojoFrame (cognitive 16) scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OMOJOPipelineModel.scala:152 — H2OMOJOPipelineModel.rowsToMojoFrame has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (10 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×1

FileTooLong: backend/SharedBackendConf.scala core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/SharedBackendConf.scala — FileTooLong — 517 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 17 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

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

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/HyperParamsParam.scala:67 — ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/HyperParamsParam.scala:67-89 | ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:54-70 | scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringArrayArrayParam.scala:51-67 | scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:55-71 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OFrame.scala:64 — core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OFrame.scala:64-78 | core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OFrame.scala:93-108 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OFrame.scala:64` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala:47 — core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala:47-62 | core/src/main/scala_spark_2.2/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala:47-62 — before extracting anything, compare `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.1/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala` and `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.2/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/SparklingWaterListener.scala` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/algos/H2OEstimator.scala:46 — ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/algos/H2OEstimator.scala:46-59 | ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/algos/H2OStackedEnsemble.scala:60-75 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/BuildInfo.scala:61 — core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/BuildInfo.scala:61-74 | core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/BuildInfo.scala:80-93 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/HyperParamsParam.scala:68 — ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/HyperParamsParam.scala:68-78 | ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:55-65 | scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringArrayArrayParam.scala:52-62 | scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala:56-66 — before extracting anything, compare `ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala` and `scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/NullableStringPairArrayParam.scala` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 36 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/params/HyperParamsParam.scala:68` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OMOJOPredictionWordEmbedding.scala:44 — scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OMOJOPredictionWordEmbedding.scala:44-54 | scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OWord2VecMOJOBase.scala:47-57 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OMOJOPredictionWordEmbedding.scala:44` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (3–8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (3–8 lines × 3) booklet/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/booklet/generation/ConfigurationsTemplate.scala:93 — booklet/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/booklet/generation/ConfigurationsTemplate.scala:93-100 | core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/H2OContextExtensions.scala:174-176 | doc/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/doc/generation/ConfigurationsTemplate.scala:81-88 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `booklet/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/booklet/generation/ConfigurationsTemplate.scala:93` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `booklet/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/booklet/generation/ConfigurationsTemplate.scala:91` calls `filter`, `startsWith` and `core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/utils/H2OContextExtensions.scala:174` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) utils/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/utils/DataFrameJsonSerialization.scala:36 — utils/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/utils/DataFrameJsonSerialization.scala:36-42 | utils/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/utils/DataFrameJsonSerialization.scala:60-67 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `utils/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/utils/DataFrameJsonSerialization.scala:36` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) booklet/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/booklet/generation/ConfigurationRunner.scala:25 — booklet/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/booklet/generation/ConfigurationRunner.scala:25-37 | doc/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/doc/generation/ConfigurationRunner.scala:25-37 — before extracting anything, compare `booklet/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/booklet/generation/ConfigurationRunner.scala` and `doc/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/doc/generation/ConfigurationRunner.scala` as WHOLE FILES: 89% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (33 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (33 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusListener.scala:32 — core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusListener.scala:32-64 | core/src/main/scala_spark_others/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusListener.scala:32-64 — before extracting anything, compare `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusListener.scala` and `core/src/main/scala_spark_others/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusListener.scala` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusListener.scala:32` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusStore.scala:29 — core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusStore.scala:29-56 | core/src/main/scala_spark_others/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusStore.scala:29-56 — before extracting anything, compare `core/src/main/scala_spark_2.3/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusStore.scala` and `core/src/main/scala_spark_others/org/apache/spark/h2o/ui/AppStatusStore.scala` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) examples/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/examples/ChicagoCrimeApp.scala:97 — examples/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/examples/ChicagoCrimeApp.scala:97-113 | examples/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/examples/ChicagoCrimeApp.scala:115-131 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `examples/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/examples/ChicagoCrimeApp.scala:97` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) examples/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/examples/ChicagoCrimeApp.scala:213 — examples/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/examples/ChicagoCrimeApp.scala:213-224 | examples/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/examples/CityBikeSharingDemo.scala:129-140 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Low cohesion: H2OTargetEncoder (LCOM4 4) ml/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/features/H2OTargetEncoder.scala:34 — H2OTargetEncoder's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

Minor — 31 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×17

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

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×3

Documentation: no project overview README.rst — The README begins with the project name 'Sparkling Water' but does not state what the repository does or what it integrates (H2O-3, Spark). The overview would be the first paragraph. State what Sparkling Water is and which H2O/Spark technologies it combines.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.rst — The README has no installation or build instructions for the repository itself, unlike the root README. Add install/build steps for the Sparkling Water project (e.g. Maven dependency, Gradle, or a one-command setup).
Documentation: no usage examples README.rst — The Getting Started section links to H2O documentation but does not show how to run an example locally. Add usage examples for the README's own directory (e.g. a short runnable script showing one of the demos).

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

Most significant orphaned file core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/SharedBackendConf.scala — 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 scoring/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/ml/models/H2OMOJOModel.scala — 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 core/src/main/scala/ai/h2o/sparkling/H2OContext.scala — 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.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

D26 · Project Cohesion · Split core · ×1

Split core — A huge catch-all named 'core' at 10k LoC across 31 namespaces is a sprawling grab-bag. Suggested: split into domain-specific integration projects (e.g. ai/h2o/sparkling/backend/api/scalainterpreter) and the Spark UI layers

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 206 of 206 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 206 separate risks. Counted over 206 of the 608 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.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 4/8 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `api-generation`, `benchmarks`, `booklet`, `doc`.

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

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add scalafix or scapegoat (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-71abdd356fd542dba182e6bc316dee13/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	2	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-71abdd356fd542dba182e6bc316dee13/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	6	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)	—	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	73	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)	—	none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts) — not scanned yet).	0	—

Run 01a0e93a-fca4-77b9-9ced-d3adcca1c519 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

H2oai/sparkling-Water

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 94% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 92% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 55% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 59% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 62% · Adequate · gated by D31 ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts