iced-rs/iced

Executive summary

iced-rs/iced meets our standard for a preview release. It scores 70 out of 100 and is rated Strong, and 33 of its 35 critical findings are security problems in the build pipeline.

Every lens scores high enough to be rated Strong, so no single lens holds the score back. The best first step for the work it takes is rebalancing the test suite towards unit tests, worth about 2 points. Recording design decisions comes next, worth about 4 points.

Twenty-nine pipeline tools are referenced by a changeable name, so the build pipeline can be tampered with. Three pipeline steps install packages that can change without warning, and one secret can leak from the build pipeline. Pinning each tool to an exact version, pinning what the pipeline installs and limiting the secret to its own step would close these risks. Calling the work with await instead of starting a new runner would take care of the second task runner started inside asynchronous code.

The product code is 70,183 lines, about €120,000 to rebuild.

Code Health 76 Strong Architecture 97 ★ Exemplary Maturity 65 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 64 Strong Security and Compliance 86 Strong Event Sourcing 100 ★ Exemplary Performance 85 ★ Exemplary

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

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

Production Readiness 64 · counts for 46%Maturity 65 · counts for 25%Code Health 76 · counts for 14%Performance 85 · counts for 8%Security and Compliance 86 · counts for 4%Architecture 97 · counts for 2%Event Sourcing 100 · counts for 1%

Every lens already scores high enough to be rated Strong, so no single lens holds the score back.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 78%Tests 22%

New since the last survey: 12 findings

These 12 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 12 October 2026.

Dependency Hygiene · Yanked release: tokio
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED

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

Fixed since the last survey: 2 findings

These 2 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 12 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: wgpu/src/text.rs wgpu/src/text.rs
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED

Rebuild cost: about €120,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€39,000 to €190,000, for 643 to 2,041 hours of work, about 0.8 person-years for 1 to 2 engineers
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×1.0 at a score of 70. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 70,183 lines of product code

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

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 1 Inverted test pyramid finding(s) in Test Distribution.

Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Test Distribution

Record your significant design decisions.

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

Raises the score by about 4 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Resolve the 1 Yanked release finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €120,000 to build again, about 0.8 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 64 (Adequate). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

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

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

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 1 Inverted test pyramid finding(s) in Test Distribution. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 2 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 Test Distribution findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

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

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

Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 7.5 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 2% to 5% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 49,671 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 201,444 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 10.1 to 67.1 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.

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

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

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

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

278 modules, with 2029 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 69 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 238 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 iced_beacon.client	2 iced_core.mouse.interaction	3 iced_core.pixels	4 iced_core.color	5 iced_core.length	6 iced_core.vector	7 iced_core.point	8 iced_core.rectangle	9 iced_core.mouse.cursor	10 iced_core.size	11 iced_core.clipboard	12 iced_core.layout.limits	13 iced_core.image	14 iced_core.shell	15 iced_core.layout.flex	16 iced_graphics.compositor	17 iced_core.backend	18 iced_core.font	19 iced_core.text	21 iced_core.text.editor	23 iced_core.widget.tree	24 iced_core.layout	25 iced_core.text.input	26 iced_core.widget	27 iced_core.widget.text	28 iced_core.theme	29 iced_core.overlay.element	30 iced_widget.checkbox	31 iced_widget.text_editor	34 iced_widget.combo_box	35 iced_widget.container	37 iced_widget.pane_grid	38 iced_widget.pick_list
1 iced_beacon.client
2 iced_core.mouse.interaction
3 iced_core.pixels
4 iced_core.color																1
5 iced_core.length			1
6 iced_core.vector										1
7 iced_core.point						1										1
8 iced_core.rectangle						1	1			1
9 iced_core.mouse.cursor						1	1	1
10 iced_core.size						1		1
11 iced_core.clipboard										1						1
12 iced_core.layout.limits					1					1
13 iced_core.image								1		4	1
14 iced_core.shell	1										2					1
15 iced_core.layout.flex					2					2		1	1
16 iced_graphics.compositor				1									1	1			1
17 iced_core.backend																5
18 iced_core.font																1
19 iced_core.text			4	2			1	1		1	1		1			3		3		1
20 iced_core.renderer			1	2		1		2		1			1			4	2	1	1
21 iced_core.text.editor	2		1	1			1	1	2	1			1			1		2	3
22 iced_wgpu.geometry						1	2	3		1	1				2		1	2	1
23 iced_core.widget.tree						1				1										1
24 iced_core.layout							1	1		2		1									2
25 iced_core.text.input	1		1	1	1		1	1	1	1		1		1		1		2	4	3		1
26 iced_core.widget	2	2				2		3	3	3		3	3	2	3			3		2	5	3				3	3
27 iced_core.widget.text	2	1	1	3	1		1	2	2	2		2	2	1	1	1		4	9	1	3	3		1		2
28 iced_core.theme				2									1			2		3		1					1
29 iced_core.overlay.element	1	1							1				1	1				1								1
30 iced_widget.checkbox	1	1	2	3	1			1	1	1		1	1	1	1			5	5	1	2	1		1		2
31 iced_widget.text_editor	2	1	1	1	1			1	2	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	4	2	5	2	1		1		3
32 iced_widget.text_input	2	1	1	1	1			1	1	1		1	2	2	1			4	3	2	3	1	1	1		2
33 iced_widget.button	3	1		1	1	1		1	1	1		1	1	1	1	1		3		1	2	1		1		2	1
34 iced_widget.combo_box	2	1	1		1	1		1	1	1		1	2	1	1	1		2	3	3	2	1	1	1	1	1	1
35 iced_widget.container	1	1		1	2	1		2	1	1		2	3	1	1	1		3		1	3	1		1		2	1
36 iced_widget.overlay.menu	2	2	2	1	1		2	1	2	3		1	3	2	1	1		6	6	2	4	2		1	1	3	1
37 iced_widget.pane_grid	4	1		1	1	1	2	3	2	1	2	1	2	2	1			4	1	2	3	3		1	1	3	1
38 iced_widget.pick_list	2	1	2	1	1	1		1	1	1		1	2	1	1	2		5	5	2	2	1		1	1	2	1
39 iced_widget.scrollable	4	2		1	1	7	7	6	6	6	1	1	4	2	5	3		5	2	6	2	1		1		3	1
40 iced_widget.helpers											2								2	1				1		1		1	1	1	1	1	1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 76% · Strong ·

The Good

D3 · Rust God Classes 8.2 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.2 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.8 X1 · Repo Async correctness 6.8 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0

The Bad

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 5.9 D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 5.0

At a glance — Architecture · 97% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 9.0 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.8 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 7.6 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

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

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.0 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Ugly

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 64% · Strong ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 9.2 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 7.0 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Rust License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 6.8 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 5.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

At a glance — Security · 86% · Strong ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.5 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0

The Ugly

D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 4.8

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

The Good

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

At a glance — Performance · 85% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 8.5 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 8.5

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
A05:2025 — Injection	34	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	8	Medium

Roadmap

Begin by documenting significant design decisions in a dedicated folder to establish clear architectural context. Next, address the inverted test pyramid to ensure reliable test coverage, and enable automated dependency scanning to improve security and performance. Finally, implement a draft release gate to prevent bad builds from reaching users, and add a quick-start section to the README to help new contributors get up to speed quickly.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 Inverted test pyramid finding(s) in Test Distribution.	+2.4 pts	Low	Test Distribution
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+4.1 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 1 Yanked release finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+1.6 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.	+1.9 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.	+1.9 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+1.8 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Rust: `pub(crate)`, or keep the module private) so internals can change without breaking consumers.	+1.4 pts	Medium	Library API & versioning
`block_on` inside an `async` body	+1.3 pts	Medium	Async correctness

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 105 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 3% slop · 27% mixed · 70% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.6	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED
widget/src/mouse_area.rs	5.9	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: iced_widget::mouse_area::update (cyclomatic 27)
winit/src/lib.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
graphics/src/text/editor.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
winit/src/conversion.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
widget/src/vertical_slider.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
widget/src/slider.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
widget/src/pane_grid.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
tester/src/lib.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
core/src/text/input.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
wgpu/src/lib.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
tiny_skia/src/lib.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
core/src/widget/tree.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

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

Critical — 35

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 — 394

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 — 12

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

Could not be resolved — 16

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. 54 of 54 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. 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 — 54 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D12D13D14D15D17D19D26D28D29D30D34D35D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF1PF3X1X12X13X14X15X19X21X22X23X25X26X27X28X29X30

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, 430 of 441 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	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	—	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a175ff-46f4-7323-a01b-a4b3ebd14413.

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 (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (repository root, 20 test files), but it was not re-run: its build outgrew the 6 GB scratch ceiling (6.659 GB measured) and was stopped; its suite was not run. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, 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. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (355 contributor(s) across 7220 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 81% of the history; the other 354 hold 0.1% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D19 Documentation Quality — 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. Each ecosystem's manifests (what makes a folder runnable or a published package) need their own proof before D19 judges its units. Until then those folders' READMEs are judged only as documents (boilerplate, structure), never counted as complete.
D21 Naming 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. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
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's deterministic call-shape rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. This says nothing about whether that surface is consistent.
D24 Comment Value — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
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.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Python, Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Python, Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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 reads C# syntax, and PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go, JavaScript or TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's Python, Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality publishes two things only: a runnable or packaged unit with no example, and a multi-project root README that maps none of its parts. It does not judge clarity, and its other checks (overview, licence, boilerplate, structure, empty sections, XML-doc coverage) are withheld after adjudication: their candidates are counted in the card's gaps, not shown as rows. A false statement in a document is M4's; units are .NET projects only.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity5.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

36 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was iced_winit::run_action at 113. A further 9 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 iced_winit::conversion::key at 309 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 2 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: core/src/keyboard/key.rs (Key::to_latin at 41), core/src/theme.rs (Theme::palette at 23). 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.

iced_winit::run_action (cyclomatic 113) · ×4winit/src/lib.rs:1302

State::interact (cyclomatic 46) · ×4widget/src/scrollable.rs:2593

iced_widget::markdown::parse_with (cyclomatic 68) · ×2widget/src/markdown.rs:1075

Editor::perform (cyclomatic 45) · ×2graphics/src/text/editor.rs:261

Scrollable::update (cyclomatic 21) · ×2widget/src/scrollable.rs:636

+ 21 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 3 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with iced_winit::run_action (cyclomatic 113), iced_winit::run_instance (cyclomatic 77), iced_widget::markdown::parse_with (cyclomatic 68). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 3 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 5.9 to about 6.5/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

64 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was iced_winit::run_instance at 260.

iced_winit::run_instance (cognitive 260) · ×4winit/src/lib.rs:466

State::interact (cognitive 101) · ×4widget/src/scrollable.rs:2593

Renderer::draw (cognitive 49) · ×3tiny_skia/src/lib.rs:61

Scrollable::layout (cognitive 26) · ×3widget/src/scrollable.rs:512

Cache::draw (cognitive 20) · ×3tiny_skia/src/vector.rs:133

+ 36 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 2 bodies over 120 down to 120 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with iced_winit::run_instance (cognitive 260), iced_winit::run_action (cognitive 186). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 2 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 5.0 to about 5.8/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 120; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

52 god class(es) detected.

MethodTooLong: State.update · ×21core/src/text/editor.rs:330

FileTooLong: src/scrollable.rs · ×13widget/src/scrollable.rs

FunctionTooLong: iced_winit::run_instance · ×8winit/src/lib.rs:466

ClassTooLong: State · ×8widget/src/scrollable.rs:1227

TooManyFunctions: iced_widget::helpers · ×2widget/src/helpers.rs:239

What to do

Resolve the 21 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with scrollable.rs (3), lib.rs (3), editor.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 warning-level).
Resolve the 13 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with lib.rs (3), editor.rs (2), scrollable.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
Resolve the 8 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with conversion.rs (3), lib.rs (2), flex.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 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 Duplication9.2 / 10Stronggated by 124 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

117 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 7 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×10wgpu/src/image/atlas.rs:385

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×9core/src/color.rs:335

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×9beacon/src/client.rs:252

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×8beacon/src/client.rs:238

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×6tiny_skia/src/layer.rs:127

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

What to do

Resolve the 10 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with gradient.rs (2), editor.rs (2), atlas.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with column.rs (2), color.rs, application.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with application.rs (2), client.rs, focusable.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 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 · Coupling9.0 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

18 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 1 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 16 of the 18 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

Unstable project iced_test

Off the main sequence: iced_core

What to do

Resolve the 1 Unstable project iced_test finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.8 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

3 of 178 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: MouseArea (LCOM4 12) · ×3widget/src/mouse_area.rs:11

What to do

Resolve the 3 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with mouse_area.rs, lazy.rs, border.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

142 test methods: 20 unit, 122 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 142 `#[test]` function(s) across 20 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 9 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

Inverted test pyramid

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~9.3~~ 7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 75% · ceiling Verified

3 outdated, 1 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. 66 of 88 direct crates were graded against crates.io (0 not published there, 22 not resolved by a committed REDACTED). Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.

Yanked release: tokio

Outdated: open · ×3

What to do

Resolve the 1 Yanked release finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 628 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository. A further 4 crate(s) in the closure resolve from git, a path or a private registry and publish no licence this pass can read; they are outside this verdict. This repository publishes itself under MIT, which is its own choice and is not judged here.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: widget/src/markdown.rs (46×68=3128); widget/src/scrollable.rs (51×46=2346); winit/src/lib.rs (14×113=1582) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: core/src/layout/limits.rs (3 of 5 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: widget/src/markdown.rs · ×22widget/src/markdown.rs:1075

Repeated repair: core/src/layout/limits.rscore/src/layout/limits.rs:63

What to do

Resolve the 22 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with lib.rs (2), editor.rs (2), markdown.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (22 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with limits.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 10Stronggated by 69 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

69 deducted task-comment markers across 70183 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. 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 · ×65winit/src/clipboard.rs:154

HackComment · ×2winit/src/lib.rs:584

FixmeComment · ×2widget/src/slider.rs:511

What to do

Resolve the 65 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with lib.rs (11), emulator.rs (11), text.rs (10). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (65 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with lib.rs, highlighter.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with slider.rs, vertical_slider.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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 Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Every README, docs/ document and root guide parsed by its markup and measured in Unicode letters. Published: a runnable or packaged .NET project whose README (or a document it links, or a root guide) shows no example, and a root README naming none of three or more projects. Overview, licence, boilerplate, wall-of-text, empty-section and XML-doc rows are measured and withheld (counted in gaps) after adjudication. Deterministic, exhaustive, advisory.

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

1 of 1 documentation facets pass in full. 6 document(s) read across 1 unit(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion7.6 / 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 7.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 of 17 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)4.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

34 finding(s): 0 critical, 33 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 29 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `examples/gallery/src/civitai.rs` (line 70), `runtime/src/task.rs` (line 510) — 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 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 29 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (29 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

8 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 8 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 7 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 182 of the 279 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: cache.rs↔paragraph.rs 75%; paragraph.rs↔text_input.rs 57%; damage.rs↔layer.rs 50%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: damage.rs ↔ layer.rsgraphics/src/damage.rs:1

Change coupling: cache.rs ↔ paragraph.rs · ×3graphics/src/text/cache.rs:1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with damage.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with cache.rs (2), paragraph.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 37 of 72 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

508/697 types (73%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Keep implementation types off the public surface (Rust: `pub(crate)`, or keep the module private) so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability6.8 / 10Strong✓ 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 11/12 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `.`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) for operability.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`run_instance` is async and calls block_on — a blocking call inside async code stalls the executor thread, and every task scheduled on it for as long as it runs. — winit/src/lib.rs:466

What to do

Rust: `.await` the future instead of `block_on` (on a Tokio runtime thread it panics outright) and use `tokio::time::sleep(..).await` instead of `std::thread::sleep`; where synchronous code must run, move it to `tokio::task::spawn_blocking` or `block_in_place`.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness6.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

This runs a future to completion from inside an `async` body, which is already being polled by an executor. tokio's `Runtime::block_on` and `Handle::block_on` panic ("Cannot start a runtime from within a runtime"), and `futures::executor::block_on` parks the worker thread on a future that may need that very thread to make progress — a deadlock. The future can simply be awaited here: `fut.await`. Where a synchronous function in between forces the bridge, make that function `async` too, or run the bridge off the executor with `tokio::task::spawn_blocking(move || handle.block_on(fut)).await`. — winit/src/lib.rs:601

What to do

`block_on` inside an `async` body

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Code Health — Whether a `for` loop leaves the `RefCell` it is walking alone — safe Rust rejects a body that changes the collection its loop borrows at compile time, except through interior mutability: a `RefCell` borrowed in the loop's header stays borrowed until the loop ends, so a `borrow_mut()` of it inside the body panics with `already borrowed: BorrowMutError` and the remaining elements are never seen. Whether a `for` loop leaves the `dict`, `set` or `deque` it is walking alone — CPython's iterators over those check that the collection has not changed size since the loop began, so a body that removes from (or empties) the very collection the loop is walking makes the next step raise `RuntimeError: dictionary changed size during iteration` and the remaining items are never seen.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	76%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	97%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	65%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	64%	Strong	Largest drag on the score — prioritise here.
Security	86%	Strong	Solid.
Event Sourcing	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	85%	Exemplary	Solid.

Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 7 observation(s) recorded · The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 4 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 63 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No function in this Python code is served by a threaded web framework (a Flask, Bottle or FastAPI route, a Django or Pyramid view), so no module is shared between request threads. Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — this repository starts no server another machine can reach (no actix-web HttpServer, axum::serve, Rocket launch, warp::serve, poem or salvo Server, tonic Server::builder, hyper or tiny_http server outside examples and tests, none bound beyond loopback). Access control is therefore N/A here — a crate is authorized by the application that serves it, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in a Diesel schema, a SeaORM entity, a Diesel or sqlx row struct, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store crate (sqlx, Diesel, SeaORM, rusqlite, tokio-postgres, MongoDB, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
D10 Test Quality — ~19419 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; Python, Rust not measured.
D22 Internal API Consistency — API consistency is measured on C# only; the exposed Rust surface was not measured.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — D24 reads C# and Visual Basic comments only — this repository's production source is .py, .rs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.rs), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
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.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 51 value object(s); 13 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Python, Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface: 281 Rust file(s) were read for weak hashes and ciphers, key material fixed in the source, disabled TLS certificate validation and obsolete TLS versions, and none was found. This repository serves no HTTP of its own — no HTTP-server crate (actix-web, axum, Rocket, warp, poem, tide, salvo, tonic, a hyper server, …) among its Cargo manifests' run-time dependencies, and no server started in its production source — so HTTPS enforcement, HSTS, cookie flags and input validation are N/A here, as they are for a C# library or worker. If this codebase starts serving HTTP, the dimension reactivates automatically.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Python and Rust were read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Python request takes no token: asyncio cancels the task and trio or anyio the scope that made it, from outside the call, and requests, httpx, aiohttp and gRPC take a timeout, not a cancellation; a Rust request takes no token: a future is cancelled by dropping it, from outside the call (select!, a timeout, an aborted task), and reqwest, hyper and tonic take none
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's Rust was read, and it logs through none: the `log` crate's macros take one finished message (as log4net does in C#; its `kv` values are an opt-in its backends mostly drop), `println!`/`eprintln!` are not loggers, or it makes no log call outside its tests and examples at all. Calls through `tracing` (`tracing::info!`, or `info!` imported from it) would be judged.
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 35 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 4 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1

Boundary-crossing change coupling: damage.rs ↔ layer.rs graphics/src/damage.rs:1 — `graphics/src/damage.rs` (context graphics) and `wgpu/src/layer.rs` (context wgpu) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `5467c19c` Replace `Primitive::Translate` with `Transform`; `b7b457a5` Make `shadow` optional in `renderer::Quad`; `603832e6` Introduce `RawText` to `Primitive` in `iced_graphics` — run `git show` on any of them.

X1 · Async correctness · `block_on` inside an `async` body · ×1

`block_on` inside an `async` body winit/src/lib.rs:601 — This runs a future to completion from inside an `async` body, which is already being polled by an executor. tokio's `Runtime::block_on` and `Handle::block_on` panic ("Cannot start a runtime from within a runtime"), and `futures::executor::block_on` parks the worker thread on a future that may need that very thread to make progress — a deadlock. The future can simply be awaited here: `fut.await`. Where a synchronous function in between forces the bridge, make that function `async` too, or run the bridge off the executor with `tokio::task::spawn_blocking(move || handle.block_on(fut)).await`.

Serious — 394 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×65

TodoComment winit/src/clipboard.rs:154 — // TODO: Wasm support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit/src/conversion.rs:214 — // TODO: Fix inconsistent API on Wasm — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit/src/conversion.rs:230 — // TODO: Fix inconsistent API on Wasm — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit/src/lib.rs:216 — // TODO: Remove when unnecessary — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit/src/lib.rs:586 — // TODO: Send compositor through proxy (?) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment winit/src/lib.rs:1734 — // TODO: Shared image cache in compositor — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment widget/src/pane_grid.rs:950 — // TODO: Mouse translation — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/engine.rs:30 — // TODO: Initialize AA pipelines lazily — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/lib.rs:88 — // TODO: Centralize all the image feature handling — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/lib.rs:113 — // TODO: Resize belt smartly (?) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/lib.rs:149 — // TODO: Provide window id (?) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/image/cache.rs:186 — // TODO: Concurrency — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/image/cache.rs:262 — // TODO: Concurrency — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/image/cache.rs:279 — // TODO: Concurrency — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment tiny_skia/src/lib.rs:218 — // TODO: Concurrency — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/image/cache.rs:225 — // TODO: Concurrent Wasm support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/image/cache.rs:365 — // TODO: Concurrent support for Wasm — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/image/vector.rs:56 — // TODO: Reuse `cosmic-text` font database — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment tiny_skia/src/vector.rs:92 — // TODO: Reuse `cosmic-text` font database — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/image/vector.rs:109 — // TODO: Optimize! — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment wgpu/src/image/vector.rs:122 — // TODO: Optimize! — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment tiny_skia/src/engine.rs:532 — // TODO: Border radius — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment tiny_skia/src/geometry.rs:198 — // TODO: Honor layering! — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment tiny_skia/src/lib.rs:44 — // TODO: Shared engine — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment tiny_skia/src/text.rs:28 — // TODO: Shared engine — 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.
+ 40 more in this group — see findings.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×22

Hotspot: widget/src/markdown.rs widget/src/markdown.rs:1075 — widget/src/markdown.rs changed 46 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 68 in iced_widget::markdown::parse_with at line 1075. 11 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 35 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/markdown.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/scrollable.rs widget/src/scrollable.rs:2593 — widget/src/scrollable.rs changed 51 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 46 in State::interact at line 2593. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 48 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/scrollable.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: winit/src/lib.rs winit/src/lib.rs:1302 — winit/src/lib.rs changed 14 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 113 in iced_winit::run_action at line 1302. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 13 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- winit/src/lib.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: core/src/text/editor.rs core/src/text/editor.rs:330 — core/src/text/editor.rs changed 19 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 53 in State::update at line 330. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 17 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- core/src/text/editor.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: runtime/src/user_interface.rs runtime/src/user_interface.rs:198 — runtime/src/user_interface.rs changed 24 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 31 in UserInterface::update at line 198. 6 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 18 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- runtime/src/user_interface.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: graphics/src/text/editor.rs graphics/src/text/editor.rs:261 — graphics/src/text/editor.rs changed 16 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 45 in Editor::perform at line 261. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 15 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- graphics/src/text/editor.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/combo_box.rs widget/src/combo_box.rs:470 — widget/src/combo_box.rs changed 27 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 26 in ComboBox::update at line 470. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 25 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/combo_box.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/text_editor.rs widget/src/text_editor.rs:386 — widget/src/text_editor.rs changed 29 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in TextEditor::update at line 386. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 27 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/text_editor.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: core/src/text/input.rs core/src/text/input.rs:132 — core/src/text/input.rs changed 15 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 25 in Input::update at line 132. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 14 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- core/src/text/input.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/text/rich.rs widget/src/text/rich.rs:263 — widget/src/text/rich.rs changed 19 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in Rich::draw at line 263. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 17 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/text/rich.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/pane_grid.rs widget/src/pane_grid.rs:466 — widget/src/pane_grid.rs changed 14 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 24 in PaneGrid::update at line 466. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/pane_grid.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: core/src/layout/flex.rs core/src/layout/flex.rs:94 — core/src/layout/flex.rs changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 56 in iced_core::layout::flex::resolve at line 94. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- core/src/layout/flex.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/component.rs widget/src/component.rs:206 — widget/src/component.rs changed 20 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in Instance::update at line 206. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/component.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/table.rs widget/src/table.rs:220 — widget/src/table.rs changed 14 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 21 in Table::layout at line 220. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/table.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/mouse_area.rs widget/src/mouse_area.rs:284 — widget/src/mouse_area.rs changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 27 in iced_widget::mouse_area::update at line 284. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/mouse_area.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/column.rs widget/src/column.rs:364 — widget/src/column.rs changed 16 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in Wrapping::layout at line 364. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/column.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/row.rs widget/src/row.rs:369 — widget/src/row.rs changed 15 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in Wrapping::layout at line 369. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/row.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/vertical_slider.rs widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:245 — widget/src/vertical_slider.rs changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 28 in VerticalSlider::update at line 245. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/vertical_slider.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/slider.rs widget/src/slider.rs:245 — widget/src/slider.rs changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 27 in Slider::update at line 245. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/slider.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: widget/src/sensor.rs widget/src/sensor.rs:164 — widget/src/sensor.rs changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 20 in Sensor::update at line 164. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- widget/src/sensor.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: tester/src/lib.rs tester/src/lib.rs:531 — tester/src/lib.rs changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 20 in Tester::view at line 531. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- tester/src/lib.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: wgpu/src/image/mod.rs wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:203 — wgpu/src/image/mod.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in State::prepare at line 203. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- wgpu/src/image/mod.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×21

MethodTooLong: State.update core/src/text/editor.rs:330 — MethodTooLong — update runs 187 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 87 over it, 1.87× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: UserInterface.update runtime/src/user_interface.rs:198 — MethodTooLong — update runs 184 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 84 over it, 1.84× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: State.interact widget/src/scrollable.rs:2593 — MethodTooLong — interact runs 184 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 84 over it, 1.84× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Engine.draw_quad tiny_skia/src/engine.rs:28 — MethodTooLong — draw_quad runs 183 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 83 over it, 1.83× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Renderer.render wgpu/src/lib.rs:395 — MethodTooLong — render runs 175 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 75 over it, 1.75× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Editor.perform graphics/src/text/editor.rs:261 — MethodTooLong — perform runs 174 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 74 over it, 1.74× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: PaneGrid.update widget/src/pane_grid.rs:466 — MethodTooLong — update runs 149 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.49× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Table.layout widget/src/table.rs:220 — MethodTooLong — layout runs 144 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 44 over it, 1.44× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Content.push_str widget/src/markdown.rs:153 — MethodTooLong — push_str runs 134 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 34 over it, 1.34× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Tester.controls tester/src/lib.rs:624 — MethodTooLong — controls runs 128 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.28× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Tester.update tester/src/lib.rs:205 — MethodTooLong — update runs 119 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 19 over it, 1.19× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Engine.draw_text tiny_skia/src/engine.rs:285 — MethodTooLong — draw_text runs 118 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.18× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: PaneGrid.draw widget/src/pane_grid.rs:720 — MethodTooLong — draw runs 118 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.18× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Compositor.request wgpu/src/window/compositor.rs:50 — MethodTooLong — request runs 115 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.15× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Input.update core/src/text/input.rs:132 — MethodTooLong — update runs 112 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 12 over it, 1.12× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Slider.update widget/src/slider.rs:245 — MethodTooLong — update runs 110 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 10 over it, 1.10× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: VerticalSlider.update widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:245 — MethodTooLong — update runs 110 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 10 over it, 1.10× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: State.update widget/src/scrollable.rs:2915 — MethodTooLong — update runs 107 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 7 over it, 1.07× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ComboBox.update widget/src/combo_box.rs:470 — MethodTooLong — update runs 104 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 4 over it, 1.04× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Scrollbars.new widget/src/scrollable.rs:3160 — MethodTooLong — new runs 103 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 3 over it, 1.03× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Pipeline.new wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:38 — MethodTooLong — new runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×13

FileTooLong: src/scrollable.rs widget/src/scrollable.rs — FileTooLong — 1983 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1483 over it, 3.97× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/markdown.rs widget/src/markdown.rs — FileTooLong — 1353 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 853 over it, 2.71× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs winit/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 1275 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 775 over it, 2.55× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/conversion.rs winit/src/conversion.rs — FileTooLong — 882 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 382 over it, 1.76× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/pane_grid.rs widget/src/pane_grid.rs — FileTooLong — 773 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 67% of them inside a single declaration: PaneGrid (4 blocks, 148-931). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 273 over it, 1.55× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: text/editor.rs graphics/src/text/editor.rs — FileTooLong — 628 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 78% of them inside a single declaration: Editor (3 blocks, 31-850). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 128 over it, 1.26× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs wgpu/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 624 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 94% of them inside a single declaration: Renderer (12 blocks, 73-966). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 124 over it, 1.25× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/lib.rs tester/src/lib.rs — FileTooLong — 621 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 71% of them inside a single declaration: Tester (2 blocks, 108-792). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 121 over it, 1.24× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/triangle.rs wgpu/src/triangle.rs — FileTooLong — 615 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 115 over it, 1.23× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: text/editor.rs core/src/text/editor.rs — FileTooLong — 612 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 112 over it, 1.22× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/engine.rs tiny_skia/src/engine.rs — FileTooLong — 560 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 77% of them inside a single declaration: Engine (2 blocks, 8-604). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 60 over it, 1.12× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/pick_list.rs widget/src/pick_list.rs — FileTooLong — 540 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 80% of them inside a single declaration: PickList (4 blocks, 146-766). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 40 over it, 1.08× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/application.rs src/application.rs — FileTooLong — 529 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.06× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×10

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) wgpu/src/image/atlas.rs:385 — wgpu/src/image/atlas.rs:385-390 | wgpu/src/image/atlas.rs:395-402 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:182 — wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:182-187 | wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs:153-158 — before extracting anything, compare `wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs` and `wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 62 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) widget/src/button.rs:231 — widget/src/button.rs:231-236 | widget/src/container.rs:211-216 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) widget/src/table.rs:246 — widget/src/table.rs:246-251 | widget/src/table.rs:322-327 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) core/src/text/editor.rs:85 — core/src/text/editor.rs:85-90 | widget/src/text_editor.rs:677-682 — 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) graphics/src/text/editor.rs:908 — graphics/src/text/editor.rs:908-913 | graphics/src/text/paragraph.rs:654-659 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/geometry.rs:218 — tiny_skia/src/geometry.rs:218-223 | wgpu/src/geometry.rs:265-270 — 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) wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:52 — wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:52-57 | wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs:46-51 — before extracting anything, compare `wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs` and `wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 62 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) widget/src/canvas.rs:270 — widget/src/canvas.rs:270-275 | widget/src/shader.rs:119-124 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) widget/src/pin.rs:149 — widget/src/pin.rs:149-154 | widget/src/responsive.rs:133-138 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×9

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) core/src/color.rs:335 — core/src/color.rs:335-345 | core/src/color.rs:346-356 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/application.rs:769 — src/application.rs:769-779 | src/application.rs:852-862 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/engine.rs:213 — tiny_skia/src/engine.rs:213-223 | tiny_skia/src/engine.rs:256-266 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) wgpu/src/geometry.rs:177 — wgpu/src/geometry.rs:177-187 | wgpu/src/geometry.rs:238-248 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) wgpu/src/image/atlas.rs:68 — wgpu/src/image/atlas.rs:68-78 | wgpu/src/image/atlas.rs:469-479 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) widget/src/column.rs:406 — widget/src/column.rs:406-416 | widget/src/row.rs:411-421 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/column.rs` and `widget/src/row.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 82 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) widget/src/overlay/menu.rs:448 — widget/src/overlay/menu.rs:448-458 | widget/src/overlay/menu.rs:477-487 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) widget/src/slider.rs:459 — widget/src/slider.rs:459-469 | widget/src/slider.rs:473-483 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) widget/src/column.rs:64 — widget/src/column.rs:64-74 | widget/src/row.rs:70-80 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/column.rs` and `widget/src/row.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 82 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×9

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) beacon/src/client.rs:252 — beacon/src/client.rs:252-261 | beacon/src/lib.rs:286-295 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) core/src/widget/operation/focusable.rs:125 — core/src/widget/operation/focusable.rs:125-134 | core/src/widget/operation/focusable.rs:157-166 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) core/src/widget/operation/text.rs:101 — core/src/widget/operation/text.rs:101-110 | core/src/widget/operation/text.rs:123-132 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/application.rs:113 — src/application.rs:113-122 | src/daemon.rs:57-66 — before extracting anything, compare `src/application.rs` and `src/daemon.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/application.rs:128 — src/application.rs:128-137 | src/daemon.rs:80-89 — before extracting anything, compare `src/application.rs` and `src/daemon.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) wgpu/src/color.rs:80 — wgpu/src/color.rs:80-89 | wgpu/src/triangle/msaa.rs:51-60 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) widget/src/component.rs:264 — widget/src/component.rs:264-273 | widget/src/component.rs:482-491 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) widget/src/sensor.rs:192 — widget/src/sensor.rs:192-201 | widget/src/sensor.rs:204-213 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) widget/src/text_editor.rs:797 — widget/src/text_editor.rs:797-806 | widget/src/text_input.rs:581-590 — 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.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×8

FunctionTooLong: iced_winit::run_instance winit/src/lib.rs:466 — FunctionTooLong — iced_winit::run_instance runs 510 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 410 over it, 5.10× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: iced_winit::conversion::key winit/src/conversion.rs:544 — FunctionTooLong — iced_winit::conversion::key runs 314 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 214 over it, 3.14× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: iced_core::layout::flex::resolve core/src/layout/flex.rs:94 — FunctionTooLong — iced_core::layout::flex::resolve runs 254 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 154 over it, 2.54× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: iced_winit::run winit/src/lib.rs:70 — FunctionTooLong — iced_winit::run runs 231 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 131 over it, 2.31× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: iced_winit::conversion::key_code winit/src/conversion.rs:884 — FunctionTooLong — iced_winit::conversion::key_code runs 198 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 98 over it, 1.98× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: iced_wgpu::text::prepare wgpu/src/text.rs:433 — FunctionTooLong — iced_wgpu::text::prepare runs 164 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 64 over it, 1.64× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: iced_wgpu::color::convert wgpu/src/color.rs:5 — FunctionTooLong — iced_wgpu::color::convert runs 134 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 34 over it, 1.34× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: iced_winit::conversion::window_event winit/src/conversion.rs:149 — FunctionTooLong — iced_winit::conversion::window_event runs 108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.08× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×8

ClassTooLong: State widget/src/scrollable.rs:1227 — ClassTooLong — 780 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 29 methods, 4 blocks, lines 1227-3134. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 380 over it, 1.95× 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.
ClassTooLong: Renderer wgpu/src/lib.rs:73 — ClassTooLong — 584 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 8 methods, 12 blocks, lines 73-966. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 184 over it, 1.46× 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.
ClassTooLong: PaneGrid widget/src/pane_grid.rs:148 — ClassTooLong — 520 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 12 methods, 4 blocks, lines 148-931. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 120 over it, 1.30× 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.
ClassTooLong: Editor graphics/src/text/editor.rs:16 — ClassTooLong — 488 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 5 methods, 3 blocks, lines 31-850. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 88 over it, 1.22× 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.
ClassTooLong: Scrollable widget/src/scrollable.rs:83 — ClassTooLong — 476 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 21 methods, 3 blocks, lines 83-1014. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 76 over it, 1.19× 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.
ClassTooLong: Tester tester/src/lib.rs:108 — ClassTooLong — 439 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 9 methods, 2 blocks, lines 108-792. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 39 over it, 1.10× 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.
ClassTooLong: PickList widget/src/pick_list.rs:146 — ClassTooLong — 430 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 18 methods, 4 blocks, lines 146-766. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.08× 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.
ClassTooLong: Engine tiny_skia/src/engine.rs:8 — ClassTooLong — 430 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 6 methods, 2 blocks, lines 8-604. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.08× 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) · ×8

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) beacon/src/client.rs:238 — beacon/src/client.rs:238-246 | beacon/src/lib.rs:301-309 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) core/src/gradient.rs:68 — core/src/gradient.rs:68-76 | graphics/src/gradient.rs:67-75 — 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 (9 lines × 2) futures/src/subscription.rs:322 — futures/src/subscription.rs:322-330 | futures/src/subscription.rs:378-386 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) selector/src/target.rs:50 — selector/src/target.rs:50-58 | selector/src/target.rs:62-70 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/application.rs:117 — src/application.rs:117-125 | src/application/timed.rs:59-67 — 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 (9 lines × 2) widget/src/slider.rs:426 — widget/src/slider.rs:426-434 | widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:423-431 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/slider.rs` and `widget/src/vertical_slider.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/layer.rs:170 — tiny_skia/src/layer.rs:170-178 | wgpu/src/layer.rs:179-187 — before extracting anything, compare `tiny_skia/src/layer.rs` and `wgpu/src/layer.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) wgpu/src/triangle.rs:688 — wgpu/src/triangle.rs:688-696 | wgpu/src/triangle.rs:820-828 — 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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×7

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×7

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/layer.rs:127 — tiny_skia/src/layer.rs:127-143 | wgpu/src/layer.rs:136-152 — before extracting anything, compare `tiny_skia/src/layer.rs` and `wgpu/src/layer.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/text.rs:48 — tiny_skia/src/text.rs:48-64 | tiny_skia/src/text.rs:75-91 — 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 (17 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/vector.rs:93 — tiny_skia/src/vector.rs:93-109 | wgpu/src/image/vector.rs:57-73 — 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 (17 lines × 2) widget/src/column.rs:283 — widget/src/column.rs:283-299 | widget/src/row.rs:289-305 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/column.rs` and `widget/src/row.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 82 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) widget/src/pane_grid.rs:535 — widget/src/pane_grid.rs:535-551 | widget/src/pane_grid.rs:553-569 — 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 (17 lines × 2) wgpu/src/triangle.rs:640 — wgpu/src/triangle.rs:640-656 | wgpu/src/triangle.rs:772-788 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) wgpu/src/color.rs:170 — wgpu/src/color.rs:170-182 | wgpu/src/triangle/msaa.rs:318-329 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) widget/src/slider.rs:402 — widget/src/slider.rs:402-413 | widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:399-410 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/slider.rs` and `widget/src/vertical_slider.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) widget/src/slider.rs:436 — widget/src/slider.rs:436-447 | widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:433-444 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/slider.rs` and `widget/src/vertical_slider.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) widget/src/text_editor.rs:816 — widget/src/text_editor.rs:816-827 | widget/src/text_input.rs:600-611 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/layer.rs:151 — tiny_skia/src/layer.rs:151-162 | wgpu/src/layer.rs:160-171 — before extracting anything, compare `tiny_skia/src/layer.rs` and `wgpu/src/layer.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · iced_winit · ×4

iced_winit::run_action (cyclomatic 113) winit/src/lib.rs:1302 — iced_winit::run_action has cyclomatic complexity 113 (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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: winit/src/lib.rs holds 3 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 163 of the 548 points over it (30%), 2.5× the next-largest file (widget/src/markdown.rs at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
iced_winit::run_instance (cyclomatic 77) winit/src/lib.rs:466 — iced_winit::run_instance has cyclomatic complexity 77 (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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: winit/src/lib.rs holds 3 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 163 of the 548 points over it (30%), 2.5× the next-largest file (widget/src/markdown.rs at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
iced_winit::conversion::window_event (cyclomatic 29) winit/src/conversion.rs:149 — iced_winit::conversion::window_event has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: iced_winit::conversion::key (cyclomatic 309) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
iced_winit::run (cyclomatic 18) winit/src/lib.rs:70 — iced_winit::run 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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: winit/src/lib.rs holds 3 of the 36 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 163 of the 548 points over it (30%), 2.5× the next-largest file (widget/src/markdown.rs at 66). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · State · ×4

State::interact (cyclomatic 46) widget/src/scrollable.rs:2593 — State::interact has cyclomatic complexity 46 (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.
State::update (cyclomatic 34) widget/src/scrollable.rs:2915 — State::update has cyclomatic complexity 34 (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.
State::update (cyclomatic 32) core/src/text/editor.rs:330 — State::update has cyclomatic complexity 32 (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.
State::prepare (cyclomatic 18) wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:203 — State::prepare has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · iced_winit · ×4

iced_winit::run_instance (cognitive 260) winit/src/lib.rs:466 — iced_winit::run_instance has cognitive complexity 260 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 41 (158 pts), loops 12 (53 pts), match/switch 10 (41 pts), boolean chains 8 (nesting depth added 189). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: winit/src/lib.rs holds 4 of the 64 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 435 of the 1500 points over it (29%), 2.8× the next-largest file (widget/src/scrollable.rs at 157). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
iced_winit::run_action (cognitive 186) winit/src/lib.rs:1302 — iced_winit::run_action has cognitive complexity 186 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 47 (141 pts), loops 9 (23 pts), match/switch 9 (20 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 119). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: winit/src/lib.rs holds 4 of the 64 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 435 of the 1500 points over it (29%), 2.8× the next-largest file (widget/src/scrollable.rs at 157). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
iced_winit::run (cognitive 32) winit/src/lib.rs:70 — iced_winit::run has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (19 pts), if/else 7 (11 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: winit/src/lib.rs holds 4 of the 64 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 435 of the 1500 points over it (29%), 2.8× the next-largest file (widget/src/scrollable.rs at 157). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
iced_winit::update (cognitive 17) winit/src/lib.rs:1247 — iced_winit::update has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (9 pts), match/switch 1 (5 pts), if/else 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: winit/src/lib.rs holds 4 of the 64 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 435 of the 1500 points over it (29%), 2.8× the next-largest file (widget/src/scrollable.rs at 157). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · State · ×4

State::interact (cognitive 101) widget/src/scrollable.rs:2593 — State::interact has cognitive complexity 101 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (72 pts), match/switch 8 (22 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 58). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
State::update (cognitive 54) widget/src/scrollable.rs:2915 — State::update has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (40 pts), boolean chains 9, match/switch 3 (5 pts) (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.
State::update (cognitive 45) core/src/text/editor.rs:330 — State::update has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (33 pts), match/switch 6 (12 pts) (nesting depth added 23). Of this number, 40 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to one function item inside it that branches. The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
State::prepare (cognitive 31) wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:203 — State::prepare has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), match/switch 4 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Renderer · ×3

Renderer::draw (cognitive 49) tiny_skia/src/lib.rs:61 — Renderer::draw has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 8 (29 pts), if/else 6 (20 pts) (nesting depth added 35). 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.
Renderer::render (cognitive 36) wgpu/src/lib.rs:395 — Renderer::render has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (26 pts), loops 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 21). 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.
Renderer::prepare (cognitive 16) wgpu/src/lib.rs:283 — Renderer::prepare has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Scrollable · ×3

Scrollable::layout (cognitive 26) widget/src/scrollable.rs:512 — Scrollable::layout has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (19 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 8). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
Scrollable::update (cognitive 26) widget/src/scrollable.rs:636 — Scrollable::update has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (22 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Scrollable::draw (cognitive 25) widget/src/scrollable.rs:782 — Scrollable::draw has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (18 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Cache · ×3

Cache::draw (cognitive 20) tiny_skia/src/vector.rs:133 — Cache::draw has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Cache::upload (cognitive 19) wgpu/src/image/vector.rs:94 — Cache::upload has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), match/switch 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.
Cache::receive (cognitive 18) wgpu/src/image/cache.rs:283 — Cache::receive has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 3 (9 pts), if/else 3 (7 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). 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.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×3

Change coupling: cache.rs ↔ paragraph.rs graphics/src/text/cache.rs:1 — `graphics/src/text/cache.rs` and `graphics/src/text/paragraph.rs` change together 75% of the time (9 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `7b3ec152` Update `cosmic-text` to `0.19`; `1354cc1b` Add `Ellipsis` support :tada:; `439f4e32` Update `cosmic-text` to `0.15` :tada: — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: paragraph.rs ↔ text_input.rs core/src/text/paragraph.rs:1 — `core/src/text/paragraph.rs` and `widget/src/text_input.rs` change together 57% of the time (12 of the 21 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 12 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `4ef3b1d3` Drop the `Font` generic in favor of the concrete `Font` type; `836a93a1` Draft `is_secure` support for new `text::Input` abstraction; `1354cc1b` Add `Ellipsis` support :tada: — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: cache.rs ↔ editor.rs graphics/src/text/cache.rs:1 — `graphics/src/text/cache.rs` and `graphics/src/text/editor.rs` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `7b3ec152` Update `cosmic-text` to `0.19`; `439f4e32` Update `cosmic-text` to `0.15` :tada:; `6bf6fc60` Update `cosmic-text` to `0.14` — run `git show` on any of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×3

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:38 — wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:38-177 | wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:72-170 | wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs:64-144 | wgpu/src/triangle/msaa.rs:23-118 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) widget/src/column.rs:262 — widget/src/column.rs:262-271 | widget/src/grid.rs:278-287 | widget/src/keyed/column.rs:295-304 | widget/src/row.rs:268-277 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:324 — widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:324-362 | widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:373-430 | widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:439-479 | widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:489-543 — 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 (18 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/application.rs:93 — src/application.rs:93-110 | src/daemon.rs:37-54 — before extracting anything, compare `src/application.rs` and `src/daemon.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) wgpu/src/geometry.rs:455 — wgpu/src/geometry.rs:455-472 | wgpu/src/geometry.rs:478-495 — 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 (18 lines × 2) wgpu/src/lib.rs:488 — wgpu/src/lib.rs:488-505 | wgpu/src/lib.rs:576-593 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) wgpu/src/triangle.rs:501 — wgpu/src/triangle.rs:501-516 | wgpu/src/triangle.rs:524-539 — 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 (16 lines × 2) winit/src/clipboard.rs:53 — winit/src/clipboard.rs:53-68 | winit/src/clipboard.rs:100-115 — 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 (16 lines × 2) winit/src/lib.rs:826 — winit/src/lib.rs:826-841 | winit/src/lib.rs:1167-1182 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:152 — wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:152-166 | wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs:130-144 — before extracting anything, compare `wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs` and `wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 62 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) wgpu/src/triangle.rs:728 — wgpu/src/triangle.rs:728-742 | wgpu/src/triangle.rs:872-886 — 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 (15 lines × 2) widget/src/column.rs:382 — widget/src/column.rs:382-396 | widget/src/row.rs:387-401 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/column.rs` and `widget/src/row.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 82 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) graphics/src/text/paragraph.rs:89 — graphics/src/text/paragraph.rs:89-101 | graphics/src/text/paragraph.rs:149-161 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) widget/src/button.rs:377 — widget/src/button.rs:377-389 | widget/src/container.rs:381-393 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) widget/src/canvas.rs:234 — widget/src/canvas.rs:234-246 | widget/src/shader.rs:97-109 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×3

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) core/src/widget/operation.rs:178 — core/src/widget/operation.rs:178-188 | core/src/widget/operation.rs:248-258 | core/src/widget/operation.rs:300-310 — 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 (11 lines × 3) program/src/lib.rs:174 — program/src/lib.rs:174-184 | program/src/lib.rs:344-354 | src/application.rs:936-946 — before extracting anything, compare `program/src/lib.rs` and `src/application.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) widget/src/mouse_area.rs:250 — widget/src/mouse_area.rs:250-260 | widget/src/sensor.rs:275-285 | widget/src/tooltip.rs:284-294 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) widget/src/checkbox.rs:292 — widget/src/checkbox.rs:292-299 | widget/src/toggler.rs:272-279 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) core/src/widget/text.rs:185 — core/src/widget/text.rs:185-192 | widget/src/text/rich.rs:177-184 — 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 (8 lines × 2) wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:78 — wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:78-85 | wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs:68-75 — before extracting anything, compare `wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs` and `wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 62 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/application.rs:719 — src/application.rs:719-725 | src/application.rs:802-808 — 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) widget/src/slider.rs:357 — widget/src/slider.rs:357-363 | widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:357-363 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/slider.rs` and `widget/src/vertical_slider.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) widget/src/combo_box.rs:636 — widget/src/combo_box.rs:636-642 | widget/src/radio.rs:367-373 — 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 (6 lines × 3) · ×3

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/application.rs:117 — src/application.rs:117-122 | src/application/timed.rs:59-64 | src/daemon.rs:61-66 — before extracting anything, compare `src/application.rs` and `src/daemon.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) widget/src/container.rs:273 — widget/src/container.rs:273-278 | widget/src/pin.rs:165-170 | widget/src/responsive.rs:89-94 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) widget/src/container.rs:287 — widget/src/container.rs:287-292 | widget/src/pin.rs:179-184 | widget/src/responsive.rs:119-124 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) widget/src/scrollable.rs:799 — widget/src/scrollable.rs:799-803 | widget/src/scrollable.rs:950-954 — 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 (5 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/lib.rs:262 — tiny_skia/src/lib.rs:262-266 | wgpu/src/lib.rs:743-747 — 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 (5 lines × 2) widget/src/overlay/menu.rs:511 — widget/src/overlay/menu.rs:511-515 | widget/src/overlay/menu.rs:576-580 — 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×3

Low cohesion: MouseArea (LCOM4 12) widget/src/mouse_area.rs:11 — MouseArea's methods fall into 12 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 12 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: Lazy (LCOM4 7) widget/src/lazy.rs:14 — Lazy's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: Radius (LCOM4 4) core/src/border.rs:81 — Radius'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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · iced_widget · ×2

iced_widget::markdown::parse_with (cyclomatic 68) widget/src/markdown.rs:1075 — iced_widget::markdown::parse_with has cyclomatic complexity 68 (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.
iced_widget::mouse_area::update (cyclomatic 27) widget/src/mouse_area.rs:284 — iced_widget::mouse_area::update 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 · Editor · ×2

Editor::perform (cyclomatic 45) graphics/src/text/editor.rs:261 — Editor::perform has cyclomatic complexity 45 (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.
Editor::update (cyclomatic 16) graphics/src/text/editor.rs:598 — Editor::update has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Scrollable · ×2

Scrollable::update (cyclomatic 21) widget/src/scrollable.rs:636 — Scrollable::update has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Scrollable::draw (cyclomatic 18) widget/src/scrollable.rs:782 — Scrollable::draw has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Tester · ×2

Tester::tick (cyclomatic 20) tester/src/lib.rs:422 — Tester::tick has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Tester::update (cyclomatic 18) tester/src/lib.rs:205 — Tester::update 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: Tester::view (cyclomatic 20) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×2

HackComment winit/src/lib.rs:584 — // HACK! Send a proxy event on completion to trigger — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment core/src/text/highlighter.rs:29 — // Hack: Best effort — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×2

FixmeComment widget/src/slider.rs:511 — // FIXME: Fall back to `Pointer` on Windows — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:508 — // FIXME: Fall back to `Pointer` on Windows — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · iced_core · ×2

iced_core::layout::flex::resolve (cognitive 106) core/src/layout/flex.rs:94 — iced_core::layout::flex::resolve has cognitive complexity 106 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 30 (59 pts), match/switch 12 (29 pts), loops 7 (11 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 50). 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.
iced_core::widget::tree::diff_children_custom_with_search (cognitive 23) core/src/widget/tree.rs:135 — iced_core::widget::tree::diff_children_custom_with_search has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (18 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · iced_widget · ×2

iced_widget::markdown::parse_with (cognitive 85) widget/src/markdown.rs:1075 — iced_widget::markdown::parse_with has cognitive complexity 85 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 29 (65 pts), loops 3 (9 pts), match/switch 5 (8 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 45). 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.
iced_widget::mouse_area::update (cognitive 31) widget/src/mouse_area.rs:284 — iced_widget::mouse_area::update has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (24 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PaneGrid · ×2

PaneGrid::update (cognitive 56) widget/src/pane_grid.rs:466 — PaneGrid::update has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (39 pts), match/switch 4 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 31). 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.
PaneGrid::draw (cognitive 21) widget/src/pane_grid.rs:720 — PaneGrid::draw has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Editor · ×2

Editor::perform (cognitive 55) graphics/src/text/editor.rs:261 — Editor::perform has cognitive complexity 55 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (36 pts), match/switch 5 (12 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 29). 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.
Editor::update (cognitive 21) graphics/src/text/editor.rs:598 — Editor::update has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (13 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · iced_beacon · ×2

iced_beacon::run (cognitive 53) beacon/src/lib.rs:94 — iced_beacon::run has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (30 pts), if/else 5 (17 pts), loops 4 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 37). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
iced_beacon::client::run (cognitive 38) beacon/src/client.rs:117 — iced_beacon::client::run has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (20 pts), if/else 2 (11 pts), loops 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 28). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Content · ×2

Content::push_str (cognitive 50) widget/src/markdown.rs:153 — Content::push_str has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (35 pts), boolean chains 7, match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Content::resolve_sections (cognitive 25) widget/src/markdown.rs:544 — Content::resolve_sections has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Tester · ×2

Tester::tick (cognitive 39) tester/src/lib.rs:422 — Tester::tick has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (31 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 22). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
Tester::controls (cognitive 21) tester/src/lib.rs:624 — Tester::controls has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Rich · ×2

Rich::draw (cognitive 39) widget/src/text/rich.rs:263 — Rich::draw has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), loops 5 (13 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Rich::update (cognitive 20) widget/src/text/rich.rs:392 — Rich::update has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Engine · ×2

Engine::draw_quad (cognitive 20) tiny_skia/src/engine.rs:28 — Engine::draw_quad has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Engine::draw_text (cognitive 16) tiny_skia/src/engine.rs:285 — Engine::draw_text has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 7). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Wrapping · ×2

Wrapping::layout (cognitive 20) widget/src/column.rs:364 — Wrapping::layout has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (9 pts), if/else 5 (8 pts), match/switch 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). 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.
Wrapping::layout (cognitive 20) widget/src/row.rs:369 — Wrapping::layout has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (9 pts), if/else 5 (8 pts), match/switch 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). 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 · Limits · ×2

Limits::width (cognitive 16) core/src/layout/limits.rs:63 — Limits::width has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 7). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Limits::height) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
Limits::height (cognitive 16) core/src/layout/limits.rs:126 — Limits::height has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 7). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (Limits::width) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFunctions · ×2

TooManyFunctions: iced_widget::helpers widget/src/helpers.rs:239 — TooManyFunctions — 51 free functions. The bar is 30 free functions; this is 21 over it, 1.70× 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.
TooManyFunctions: iced_runtime::window runtime/src/window.rs:196 — TooManyFunctions — 41 free functions. The bar is 30 free functions; this is 11 over it, 1.37× 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 (26 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) core/src/text/editor.rs:389 — core/src/text/editor.rs:389-414 | core/src/text/editor.rs:455-480 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:61 — wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:61-86 | wgpu/src/triangle/msaa.rs:28-53 — 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 (20 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) core/src/length.rs:132 — core/src/length.rs:132-151 | core/src/length.rs:159-178 — 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 (20 lines × 2) widget/src/slider.rs:508 — widget/src/slider.rs:508-527 | widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:505-524 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/slider.rs` and `widget/src/vertical_slider.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) widget/src/pane_grid/node.rs:265 — widget/src/pane_grid/node.rs:265-283 | widget/src/pane_grid/node.rs:313-331 — 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 (19 lines × 2) winit/src/lib.rs:850 — winit/src/lib.rs:850-868 | winit/src/lib.rs:1184-1202 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) core/src/widget/operation.rs:184 — core/src/widget/operation.rs:184-200 | core/src/widget/operation.rs:306-322 | core/src/widget/operation.rs:385-401 — 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 (17 lines × 3) winit/src/lib.rs:718 — winit/src/lib.rs:718-734 | winit/src/lib.rs:849-865 | winit/src/lib.rs:1183-1199 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) core/src/layout/flex.rs:212 — core/src/layout/flex.rs:212-225 | core/src/layout/flex.rs:248-261 — 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 (14 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/layer.rs:79 — tiny_skia/src/layer.rs:79-92 | wgpu/src/layer.rs:108-121 — before extracting anything, compare `tiny_skia/src/layer.rs` and `wgpu/src/layer.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) widget/src/column.rs:263 — widget/src/column.rs:263-271 | widget/src/grid.rs:279-287 | widget/src/keyed/column.rs:296-304 | widget/src/row.rs:269-277 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/column.rs` and `widget/src/row.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 82 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) widget/src/column.rs:245 — widget/src/column.rs:245-253 | widget/src/grid.rs:261-269 | widget/src/keyed/column.rs:278-286 | widget/src/row.rs:251-259 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/column.rs` and `widget/src/row.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 82 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · iced_core · ×1

iced_core::layout::flex::resolve (cyclomatic 56) core/src/layout/flex.rs:94 — iced_core::layout::flex::resolve has cyclomatic complexity 56 (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 · iced_beacon · ×1

iced_beacon::run (cyclomatic 34) beacon/src/lib.rs:94 — iced_beacon::run has cyclomatic complexity 34 (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 · UserInterface · ×1

UserInterface::update (cyclomatic 31) runtime/src/user_interface.rs:198 — UserInterface::update has cyclomatic complexity 31 (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 · Binding · ×1

Binding::from_key_press (cyclomatic 30) core/src/text/editor.rs:851 — Binding::from_key_press has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Content · ×1

Content::push_str (cyclomatic 28) widget/src/markdown.rs:153 — Content::push_str has cyclomatic complexity 28 (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 · VerticalSlider · ×1

VerticalSlider::update (cyclomatic 28) widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:245 — VerticalSlider::update has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Slider · ×1

Slider::update (cyclomatic 27) widget/src/slider.rs:245 — Slider::update has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ComboBox · ×1

ComboBox::update (cyclomatic 26) widget/src/combo_box.rs:470 — ComboBox::update has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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 · PaneGrid · ×1

PaneGrid::update (cyclomatic 24) widget/src/pane_grid.rs:466 — PaneGrid::update has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DevTools · ×1

DevTools::update (cyclomatic 23) devtools/src/lib.rs:185 — DevTools::update has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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 · PickList · ×1

PickList::update (cyclomatic 21) widget/src/pick_list.rs:432 — PickList::update has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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 · Table · ×1

Table::layout (cyclomatic 21) widget/src/table.rs:220 — Table::layout has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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 · Sensor · ×1

Sensor::update (cyclomatic 20) widget/src/sensor.rs:164 — Sensor::update has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · iced_wgpu · ×1

iced_wgpu::text::prepare (cyclomatic 18) wgpu/src/text.rs:433 — iced_wgpu::text::prepare 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 · Rich · ×1

Rich::draw (cyclomatic 18) widget/src/text/rich.rs:263 — Rich::draw has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Input · ×1

Input::update::apply (cyclomatic 17) core/src/text/input.rs:140 — Input::update::apply 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 · iced_graphics · ×1

iced_graphics::image::load (cyclomatic 17) graphics/src/image.rs:46 — iced_graphics::image::load 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 · Viewer · ×1

Viewer::update (cyclomatic 17) widget/src/image/viewer.rs:148 — Viewer::update has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Renderer · ×1

Renderer::render (cyclomatic 16) wgpu/src/lib.rs:395 — Renderer::render has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TextEditor · ×1

TextEditor::update (cyclomatic 16) widget/src/text_editor.rs:386 — TextEditor::update has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 8 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Yanked release · ×1

Yanked release: tokio — `tokio` resolves to 1.54.0 in the committed REDACTED, and crates.io reports that release as YANKED. A yanked release is one the publisher has withdrawn and asked you to stop using; it keeps resolving only so existing locks do not break. The current stable release is 1.54.1. Run `cargo update -p tokio` and commit the updated lock.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×1

Repeated repair: core/src/layout/limits.rs core/src/layout/limits.rs:63 — core/src/layout/limits.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 12 (its worst body is Limits::width at line 63), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “Fix `Length::min` bounds inside `scrollable`”; “Disable `infinite` flags for `Length::Fixed`”; “Disable `infinite` for `Fixed` and max-`Bounded` lengths”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 20:34:54 +02:00' --until='2026-10-21 20:34:54 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- core/src/layout/limits.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ComboBox · ×1

ComboBox::update (cognitive 54) widget/src/combo_box.rs:470 — ComboBox::update has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (49 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 28). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UserInterface · ×1

UserInterface::update (cognitive 53) runtime/src/user_interface.rs:198 — UserInterface::update has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (36 pts), match/switch 5 (11 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 24). 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 · Table · ×1

Table::layout (cognitive 47) widget/src/table.rs:220 — Table::layout has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (42 pts), loops 3, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 21). 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 · Sensor · ×1

Sensor::update (cognitive 40) widget/src/sensor.rs:164 — Sensor::update has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (35 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PickList · ×1

PickList::update (cognitive 39) widget/src/pick_list.rs:432 — PickList::update has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (37 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Binding · ×1

Binding::from_key_press (cognitive 38) core/src/text/editor.rs:851 — Binding::from_key_press has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (26 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Viewer · ×1

Viewer::update (cognitive 38) widget/src/image/viewer.rs:148 — Viewer::update has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (32 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 19). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VerticalSlider · ×1

VerticalSlider::update (cognitive 36) widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:245 — VerticalSlider::update has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (29 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Slider · ×1

Slider::update (cognitive 35) widget/src/slider.rs:245 — Slider::update has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (29 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DevTools · ×1

DevTools::update (cognitive 33) devtools/src/lib.rs:185 — DevTools::update has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (19 pts), match/switch 6 (14 pts) (nesting depth added 19). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Atlas · ×1

Atlas::allocate (cognitive 25) wgpu/src/image/atlas.rs:179 — Atlas::allocate has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Geometry · ×1

Geometry::cache (cognitive 24) wgpu/src/geometry.rs:43 — Geometry::cache has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (23 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 11). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · List · ×1

List::update (cognitive 23) widget/src/overlay/menu.rs:427 — List::update has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (21 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 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 · iced_graphics · ×1

iced_graphics::text::regions (cognitive 22) graphics/src/text.rs:421 — iced_graphics::text::regions has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Button · ×1

Button::update (cognitive 21) widget/src/button.rs:277 — Button::update has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (20 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Transition · ×1

Transition::update (cognitive 21) widget/src/transition.rs:202 — Transition::update has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GlyphCache · ×1

GlyphCache::allocate (cognitive 19) tiny_skia/src/text.rs:258 — GlyphCache::allocate has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (14 pts), if/else 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). 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 · iced_wgpu · ×1

iced_wgpu::text::prepare (cognitive 19) wgpu/src/text.rs:433 — iced_wgpu::text::prepare has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), match/switch 4 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Tooltip · ×1

Tooltip::overlay (cognitive 19) widget/src/tooltip.rs:296 — Tooltip::overlay has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Text · ×1

Text::draw_with (cognitive 18) graphics/src/geometry/text.rs:52 — Text::draw_with has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 3 (7 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), if/else 2 (4 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 · Instance · ×1

Instance::update (cognitive 18) widget/src/component.rs:206 — Instance::update has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Input · ×1

Input::update::apply (cognitive 17) core/src/text/input.rs:140 — Input::update::apply has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TextInput · ×1

TextInput::update (cognitive 17) widget/src/text_input.rs:328 — TextInput::update has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · iced_tiny_skia · ×1

iced_tiny_skia::geometry::convert_path (cognitive 16) tiny_skia/src/geometry.rs:329 — iced_tiny_skia::geometry::convert_path has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TitleBar · ×1

TitleBar::is_over_pick_area (cognitive 16) widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:225 — TitleBar::is_over_pick_area has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

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

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (105 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (105 shared lines) widget/src/slider.rs:254 — widget/src/slider.rs:254-414 | widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:254-411 — These two members are variants of one another: 105 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (38 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (38 shared lines) src/application.rs:92 — src/application.rs:92-166 | src/daemon.rs:36-109 — These two members are variants of one another: 38 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) program/src/lib.rs:114 — program/src/lib.rs:114-194 | program/src/lib.rs:200-277 | program/src/lib.rs:282-364 | src/application.rs:708-786 | src/application.rs:792-869 | src/application.rs:875-956 — These 6 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 6 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 6 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) widget/src/column.rs:224 — widget/src/column.rs:224-234 | widget/src/grid.rs:240-250 | widget/src/keyed/column.rs:257-267 | widget/src/row.rs:230-240 | widget/src/stack.rs:180-190 — These 5 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 5 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 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (60 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (60 lines × 2) core/src/layout/limits.rs:64 — core/src/layout/limits.rs:64-123 | core/src/layout/limits.rs:127-186 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (48 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (48 lines × 2) widget/src/slider.rs:279 — widget/src/slider.rs:279-326 | widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:279-326 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/slider.rs` and `widget/src/vertical_slider.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) widget/src/slider.rs:370 — widget/src/slider.rs:370-396 | widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:370-396 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/slider.rs` and `widget/src/vertical_slider.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/vector.rs:161 — tiny_skia/src/vector.rs:161-183 | wgpu/src/image/vector.rs:134-156 — 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 (22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) program/src/lib.rs:232 — program/src/lib.rs:232-253 | src/application.rs:824-845 — before extracting anything, compare `program/src/lib.rs` and `src/application.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 6) program/src/lib.rs:135 — program/src/lib.rs:135-155 | program/src/lib.rs:221-241 | program/src/lib.rs:305-325 | src/application.rs:730-750 | src/application.rs:813-833 | src/application.rs:897-917 — before extracting anything, compare `program/src/lib.rs` and `src/application.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) core/src/layout/flex.rs:353 — core/src/layout/flex.rs:353-373 | core/src/layout/flex.rs:416-435 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) widget/src/scrollable.rs:3599 — widget/src/scrollable.rs:3599-3619 | widget/src/scrollable.rs:3628-3648 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) widget/src/checkbox.rs:452 — widget/src/checkbox.rs:452-469 | widget/src/toggler.rs:399-417 — 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 (17–18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) graphics/src/text/paragraph.rs:112 — graphics/src/text/paragraph.rs:112-128 | graphics/src/text/paragraph.rs:199-216 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) core/src/widget/operation.rs:167 — core/src/widget/operation.rs:167-182 | core/src/widget/operation.rs:289-304 | core/src/widget/operation.rs:368-383 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 6) program/src/lib.rs:155 — program/src/lib.rs:155-169 | program/src/lib.rs:246-260 | program/src/lib.rs:325-339 | src/application.rs:750-764 | src/application.rs:838-852 | src/application.rs:917-931 — before extracting anything, compare `program/src/lib.rs` and `src/application.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) tiny_skia/src/geometry.rs:194 — tiny_skia/src/geometry.rs:194-208 | wgpu/src/geometry.rs:301-314 — 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 (13–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:231 — wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:231-245 | wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:283-295 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 3) wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:152 — wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:152-163 | wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs:130-141 | wgpu/src/triangle/msaa.rs:96-109 — before extracting anything, compare `wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs` and `wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 62 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:155 — wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:155-167 | wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs:151-163 | wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs:129-141 | wgpu/src/triangle/msaa.rs:95-107 — before extracting anything, compare `wgpu/src/quad/gradient.rs` and `wgpu/src/quad/solid.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 62 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) core/src/widget/operation/scrollable.rs:50 — core/src/widget/operation/scrollable.rs:50-62 | core/src/widget/operation/scrollable.rs:89-101 | core/src/widget/operation/scrollable.rs:124-136 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) graphics/src/gradient.rs:99 — graphics/src/gradient.rs:99-110 | graphics/src/gradient.rs:145-157 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) widget/src/combo_box.rs:551 — widget/src/combo_box.rs:551-561 | widget/src/combo_box.rs:573-585 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (9–12 lines × 2) src/application.rs:190 — src/application.rs:190-201 | src/daemon.rs:132-140 — before extracting anything, compare `src/application.rs` and `src/daemon.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10–12 lines × 2) widget/src/slider.rs:266 — widget/src/slider.rs:266-275 | widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:265-276 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/slider.rs` and `widget/src/vertical_slider.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 4) core/src/widget/operation.rs:191 — core/src/widget/operation.rs:191-200 | core/src/widget/operation.rs:274-284 | core/src/widget/operation.rs:313-322 | core/src/widget/operation.rs:392-401 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) widget/src/column.rs:225 — widget/src/column.rs:225-234 | widget/src/grid.rs:241-250 | widget/src/keyed/column.rs:258-267 | widget/src/row.rs:231-240 | widget/src/stack.rs:181-190 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/column.rs` and `widget/src/row.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 82 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) widget/src/button.rs:352 — widget/src/button.rs:352-361 | widget/src/slider.rs:405-414 | widget/src/vertical_slider.rs:402-411 — before extracting anything, compare `widget/src/slider.rs` and `widget/src/vertical_slider.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 157 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) selector/src/target.rs:203 — selector/src/target.rs:203-211 | selector/src/target.rs:215-223 | selector/src/target.rs:227-235 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) program/src/lib.rs:181 — program/src/lib.rs:181-188 | program/src/lib.rs:351-358 | src/application.rs:776-783 | src/application.rs:859-866 — before extracting anything, compare `program/src/lib.rs` and `src/application.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 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.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) core/src/widget/operation/text_input.rs:33 — core/src/widget/operation/text_input.rs:33-40 | core/src/widget/operation/text_input.rs:58-65 | core/src/widget/operation/text_input.rs:108-115 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 5) program/src/lib.rs:179 — program/src/lib.rs:179-185 | program/src/lib.rs:349-355 | src/application.rs:774-780 | src/application.rs:857-863 | src/application.rs:941-947 — before extracting anything, compare `program/src/lib.rs` and `src/application.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 84 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (3–7 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (3–7 lines × 4) widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:328 — widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:328-334 | widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:377-383 | widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:442-444 | widget/src/pane_grid/title_bar.rs:492-494 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 5) tester/src/recorder.rs:129 — tester/src/recorder.rs:129-133 | widget/src/mouse_area.rs:176-180 | widget/src/sensor.rs:260-264 | widget/src/sticky.rs:126-130 | widget/src/tooltip.rs:173-177 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 5 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 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) widget/src/button.rs:435 — widget/src/button.rs:435-440 | widget/src/container.rs:338-343 | widget/src/pin.rs:221-226 | widget/src/responsive.rs:148-153 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.

D5 · Coupling · Unstable project iced_test · ×1

Unstable project iced_test — iced_test has instability 0.83 with 1 dependents.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: iced_core — iced_core: abstractness 0.18, instability 0.00, distance 0.82 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 8 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking · ×1

Sync-over-async blocking winit/src/lib.rs:466 — `run_instance` is async and calls block_on — a blocking call inside async code stalls the executor thread, and every task scheduled on it for as long as it runs.

Minor — 9 finding(s)

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×4

Duplicated predicate wgpu/src/image/mod.rs:241 — `bounds.width < 1.0 || bounds.height < 1.0` appears character-identically in 2 files — wgpu/src/image/mod.rs, widget/src/canvas.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate widget/src/column.rs:182 — `self.width.is_fit() || self.height.is_fit()` appears character-identically in 3 files — widget/src/column.rs, widget/src/keyed/column.rs, widget/src/row.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate widget/src/slider.rs:362 — `state.keyboard_modifiers.control() && cursor.is_over(layout.bounds())` appears character-identically in 2 files — widget/src/slider.rs, widget/src/vertical_slider.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate widget/src/button.rs:377 — `style.background.is_some() || style.border.width > 0.0 || style.shadow.color.a > 0.0` appears character-identically in 2 files — widget/src/button.rs, widget/src/container.rs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 2 of 17 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 7.6/10. The most over is `widget` (27414 LoC, 191 module-visible types across 8 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.

D9 · Test Distribution · Inverted test pyramid · ×1

Inverted test pyramid — Only 14 % of tests are unit tests (20 unit vs 122 integration, 0 BDD); a broader unit base gives faster, more localised feedback.

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.

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 508/697 types (73%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 11/12 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `.`.

Minor — 3 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×3

Outdated: open — `open` is locked at 5.4.4 but 5.4.5 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"5"` requirement declared in examples/tour/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p open` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: uuid — `uuid` is locked at 1.28.0 but 1.29.0 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0"` requirement declared in examples/todos/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p uuid` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: webbrowser — `webbrowser` is locked at 1.2.4 but 1.2.5 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1"` requirement declared in examples/changelog/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p webbrowser` and commit the updated REDACTED.

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-eff8cb1153e54964ab0d5e7431641563/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-eff8cb1153e54964ab0d5e7431641563/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 --exclude .arrow --exclude .avro --exclude .csv --exclude .dat --exclude .db --exclude .feather --exclude .geojson --exclude .h5 --exclude .hdf5 --exclude .jsonl --exclude .log --exclude .ndjson --exclude .npy --exclude .npz --exclude .orc --exclude .parquet --exclude .pickle --exclude .pkl --exclude .psv --exclude .sqlite --exclude .sqlite3 --exclude .tfrecord --exclude .tsv --exclude .txt .	34	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	8	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a175ff-46f4-7323-a01b-a4b3ebd14413 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 76% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 97% · Exemplary ·

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

At a glance — Readiness · 64% · Strong ·

At a glance — Security · 86% · Strong ·

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

At a glance — Performance · 85% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts