Public report of ieviev/resharp-dotnet, published 23 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 23 October 2026, 21:12 UTC · Survey ID cd_0d74d5e26dcf4d2084ddb9c93272699a
ieviev/resharp-dotnet
Measured 23 October 2026, 21:08 UTC, at code version c807df9
Regression: 1 dimension fell since the last survey
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
CAI scoreAdequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Down 1 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A small codebase: 19,117 lines of product code in 4 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 5.5 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 36
Findings by how serious they are
12 critical262 serious25 minor
2 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
23 October 2026, 21:08 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
62of 66 dimensions measured by tools. The other 4 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
283of 299 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 16 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
66dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 19,117 lines of product code in 4 projects.
ieviev/resharp-dotnet scores 51 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while five of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture at 88, Security and Compliance at 82, Code Health at 62 and Maturity at 56, all rated Adequate, and Performance at 76, rated Strong.
The score is lower than those five because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 36 and is rated Weak. Its REDACTED Scanning dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning and to add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 51 to about 63.
12 findings are critical: seven in Secrets (history), three in REDACTED Scanning and two in Explicit Debt.
The product code is 19,117 lines, which would take an estimated 5.5 person-years, around €790,000, to rebuild.
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 forThe 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.
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.
Rebuild cost: about €790,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€260,000 to €1,300,000, for 4,384 to 13,949 hours of work, about 5.5 person-years for 3 to 11 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
×0.7 at a score of 51. 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
Small: 19,117 lines of product code
Comment lines
The estimate prices 16,810 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 19,117 lines but aren't priced as work.
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.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED.
Raises the score by about 13 points · Low effort · REDACTED Scanning
2
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Raises the score by about 9 points · Medium effort · CI/CD gates
3
Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Resharp.Runtime.csproj (2).
Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Explicit Debt
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 €790,000 to build again, about 5.5 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 36 (Weak). 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 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 13 points for low effort, because it clears the 3 REDACTED Scanning 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 6.0 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 5% to 11% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 471 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 1,910 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 0.2 to 1.4 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.
60 modules, with 20 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.
The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 20 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.
Resharp.Info.Flags uses Resharp.Types, so a change to Resharp.Types can break Resharp.Info.Flags, while a change to Resharp.Info.Flags can't break Resharp.Types.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Info.Flags uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Runtime uses System.Collections.Generic, so a change to System.Collections.Generic can break Resharp.Runtime, while a change to Resharp.Runtime can't break System.Collections.Generic.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Runtime uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Runtime uses System.Text.RegularExpressions, so a change to System.Text.RegularExpressions can break Resharp.Runtime, while a change to Resharp.Runtime can't break System.Text.RegularExpressions.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Runtime uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.StartsetHelpers uses Resharp.Types, so a change to Resharp.Types can break Resharp.StartsetHelpers, while a change to Resharp.StartsetHelpers can't break Resharp.Types.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.StartsetHelpers uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Types.RangeSet uses Resharp.Types, so a change to Resharp.Types can break Resharp.Types.RangeSet, while a change to Resharp.Types.RangeSet can't break Resharp.Types.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Types.RangeSet uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Types.RegexNodeFlagsExtensions uses Resharp.Types, so a change to Resharp.Types can break Resharp.Types.RegexNodeFlagsExtensions, while a change to Resharp.Types.RegexNodeFlagsExtensions can't break Resharp.Types.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Types.RegexNodeFlagsExtensions uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Types.StateFlagsModule uses Resharp.Types, so a change to Resharp.Types can break Resharp.Types.StateFlagsModule, while a change to Resharp.Types.StateFlagsModule can't break Resharp.Types.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Types.StateFlagsModule uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Algorithm.RegexNode uses Resharp.Types, so a change to Resharp.Types can break Resharp.Algorithm.RegexNode, while a change to Resharp.Algorithm.RegexNode can't break Resharp.Types.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Algorithm.RegexNode uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Algorithm.RegexNode uses Resharp, so a change to Resharp can break Resharp.Algorithm.RegexNode, while a change to Resharp.Algorithm.RegexNode can't break Resharp.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Algorithm.RegexNode uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Optimizations uses Resharp.Types, so a change to Resharp.Types can break Resharp.Optimizations, while a change to Resharp.Optimizations can't break Resharp.Types.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Optimizations uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Optimizations uses Resharp, so a change to Resharp can break Resharp.Optimizations, while a change to Resharp.Optimizations can't break Resharp.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Optimizations uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Optimizations uses Resharp.Cache, so a change to Resharp.Cache can break Resharp.Optimizations, while a change to Resharp.Optimizations can't break Resharp.Cache.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Optimizations uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Optimizations.Inline uses Resharp.Common, so a change to Resharp.Common can break Resharp.Optimizations.Inline, while a change to Resharp.Optimizations.Inline can't break Resharp.Common.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Optimizations.Inline uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Optimizations.Inline uses Resharp.Types, so a change to Resharp.Types can break Resharp.Optimizations.Inline, while a change to Resharp.Optimizations.Inline can't break Resharp.Types.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Optimizations.Inline uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Resharp.Optimizations.Inline uses Resharp.Optimizations, so a change to Resharp.Optimizations can break Resharp.Optimizations.Inline, while a change to Resharp.Optimizations.Inline can't break Resharp.Optimizations.
Position
Below the diagonal: Resharp.Optimizations.Inline uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health · 62% · Adequate · gated by D1, D2, X1 ·
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
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures
11
High / Critical
Roadmap
Immediately resolve the three leaked secrets and address the 16 low-coverage areas in key files to secure the codebase. Establish a CI workflow to automatically build and test every change, while simultaneously eliminating sync-over-async patterns to prevent deadlocks. Finally, document significant design decisions in a dedicated folder to preserve architectural context for the team.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED.
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.
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 — 12
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 — 262
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 — 25
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 2
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. 62 of 66 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 1.0 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 66 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 283 of 299 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. A hotspot's complexity is meant to be the worst body its churn actually touched. For src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs that could not be established — the complexity reader for the file reports no body extents, or the history carries no per-line attribution — so the row quotes the file's worst body, which the counted changes may never have touched. The churn count is unaffected.
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 (2 contributor(s) across 35 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 97% of the history; the other 1 hold 3% 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.
D17 Explicit Debt — 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. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Cannot open project 'src/Resharp/Resharp.fsproj' because the file extension '.fsproj' is not associated with a language.
D17 Explicit Debt — 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. The 17 deducted marker(s) and the 0.4/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (7,663 lines, 41% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `lib/runtime-local/ValueListBuilder.Pop.cs`, `lib/runtime-local/ValueListBuilder.cs`, `lib/runtime-local/ValueStringBuilder.cs`, `src/Resharp.Runtime/BitVectorSolver.cs`, `src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs`, … (+1 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — 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. Too few commits to judge knowledge freshness (35 commit(s) sampled).
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.
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.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
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.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
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.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
52 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was RegexNode.CanBeMadeAtomic at 82. A further 5 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 RegexNode.ComputeMinLength at 44 — 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 methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/Resharp.Runtime/UnicodeCategoryRanges.cs (UnicodeCategoryRanges.GetSerializedCategory at 32), src/Resharp/Cache.fs (SearchValuesKind.ofSearchValues at 20). 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.
+ 46 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 4 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with RegexNode.CanBeMadeAtomic (cyclomatic 82), ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex (cyclomatic 75), ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen (cyclomatic 73). — 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 4 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 3.0 to about 3.9/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 58 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 64 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with RegexBuilder`1.mkOr2 (cognitive 169), ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen (cognitive 166), RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd (cognitive 158). — 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 64 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 2.0 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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 Classes8.6 / 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.
Resolve the 6 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with RegexBuilder.fs, RegexNode.cs, ExtendedRegexParser.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ExtendedRegexParser.cs (3), RegexNode.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with ExtendedRegexParser.cs, RegexCharClass.cs, RegexBuilder.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
+ 21 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Minterms.fs, Patterns.fs, RegexBuilder.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with RegexBuilder.fs (3), Patterns.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with RegexNode.cs, Minterms.fs, RegexBuilder.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
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.
What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.
Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.
+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 16 Low coverage finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with HexConverter.cs, StackHelper.cs, HashtableExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CRAP 2186 finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with RegexNode.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CRAP 1741 finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with RegexNode.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Coverage in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.
Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.
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.
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with Directory.Packages.props. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with Directory.Packages.props. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Dependency Hygiene in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
Resolve the 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate REDACTED Scanning in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 155 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 7 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 148 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.
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.
Resolve the 1 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with Optimizations.fs. — 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.
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.
17 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 11454 LoC in the .NET projects (0.4/KLoC) → score 9.1. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (41% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).
Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Resharp.Runtime.csproj (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 7 DeadPreprocessorBranch finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with HexConverter.cs (5), RegexParseError.cs, RegexParseException.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ExtendedRegexParser.cs (2), HexConverter.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
4 projects, 99 source files, 11454 hand-written lines of code (11454 production / 0 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), 1 inter-project edges.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README and the RE# API reference are both excellent: the former is a clear overview of what RE# does (an automata-based regex engine with intersection, complement, and _), installation, usage examples, syntax extensions, and an internal rationale for why _ is chosen over .*, plus links to a web playground, paper, and blog post; the latter is a complete API reference covering every public method, its signature, usage example, thread-safety note, and a dedicated unsupported-features section. The curated benchmark definitions README (curated/README.md) documents only that directory, not the repository, so it is excluded from review.
Resolve the 1 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Resharp.Benchmarks.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment ValueExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.
1 of 2 projects 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?
D27 · Navigability4.1 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.
Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
92 % of calls cross a namespace and 3 % go through an interface, but 39 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
Scattered collaborators
What to do
Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: REDACTED scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
7 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
semgrep found no security issues. semgrep hit a parse error in 8 file(s) — `lib/runtime-local/ValueListBuilder.Pop.cs` (lines 11–13, lines 13–14, line 14, …), `lib/runtime-local/ValueListBuilder.cs` (lines 10–12, line 204), `lib/runtime-local/ValueStringBuilder.cs` (line 13, line 15, line 16, …), `src/Resharp.Runtime/BitVectorSolver.cs` (lines 9–11), `src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs`, … (+3 more) — 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. In 2 of those file(s) — `src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs`, `src/Resharp.Runtime/UnicodeCategoryConditions.cs` — the break is at a TYPE DECLARATION (a C# primary constructor semgrep's grammar cannot parse), so the loss is wider than the named lines: rules scoped to that type see no type to scope to and are blind over its whole body, while rules matching statements keep working there. Absence of a type-scoped finding in those types is not evidence of anything.
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.
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.
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D39 · IL Efficiency9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.
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.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 2 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.
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.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.
The only thing establishing that `bytes` is long enough before it is indexed is a `Debug.Assert`, which is `[Conditional("DEBUG")]` — the compiler deletes the call from Release, so the build your users install indexes `bytes` with no length check at all and throws at the indexer instead of failing diagnosably. `bytes` comes from outside this method, so its length is a contract, not something this code can see. Bound it with a check that ships (`if (bytes.Count < n) throw …`, or `ArgumentOutOfRangeException.ThrowIfLessThan`), and keep the assert for the invariant you believe holds. — src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:344
The only thing establishing that `twoChars` is long enough before it is indexed is a `Debug.Assert`, which is `[Conditional("DEBUG")]` — the compiler deletes the call from Release, so the build your users install indexes `twoChars` with no length check at all and throws at the indexer instead of failing diagnosably. `twoChars` comes from outside this method, so its length is a contract, not something this code can see. Bound it with a check that ships (`if (twoChars.Count < n) throw …`, or `ArgumentOutOfRangeException.ThrowIfLessThan`), and keep the assert for the invariant you believe holds. — src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:1065
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×8) — lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:55, lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:56, lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:57, …
What to do
Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 2 of 2 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
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.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
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.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
README.md installs the package `Resharp` (`dotnet add package Resharp`), but no project or props file references it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:14
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README.md installs the package `Resharp` (`dotnet add package Resharp`), but no project or props file references it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.
The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either the distinct `x.y.z` versions it names (a link's target is not counted) or its version-shaped section headings (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.
What to do
Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.
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.
A BenchmarkDotNet suite exists but no [MemoryDiagnoser] — allocations (the main way hot code pressures the GC) aren't being measured.
What to do
Add [MemoryDiagnoser] to the benchmarks so allocation regressions are visible, not just time.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
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.
22 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one). (×22) — lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:40, lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:41, lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:51, …
What to do
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult().
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.
Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×22) — lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:39, lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:40, lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:50, …
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.
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.
Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
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.
Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
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.
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.
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?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
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.
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 `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` 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.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
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?
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. 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 `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.
Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
~1.3 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 135 suppression(s) across the 104728 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
What to do
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Not evidenced — 2 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 52 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No 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 — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
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.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, 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 the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D10 Test Quality — ~763352 lines of test source are present (.fs) 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.
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
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.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — small single-context codebase (18,820 production LoC in the .NET projects) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size 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"]`.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
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) — 6 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D34 Knowledge Freshness — too few commits to judge knowledge freshness
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) 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 its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (3 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — coverage data present for 39 file(s), but no domain-layer files were identified: no covered file's path contains any of the markers this check keys on (/domain/, /aggregates/, /valueobjects/, /domainmodel/, .domain/, /entities/), which are matched case-insensitively anywhere in the path. With no domain partition there is nothing to compare the web/controller layer against — if this repository keeps its business rules under a folder named none of those, that naming is what the check cannot see, not the domain logic.
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no async method does work a token could cancel
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.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Resharp.Runtime/Resharp.Runtime.csproj:8— CS0436 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Resharp.Runtime/Resharp.Runtime.csproj:8— CS8500 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
Sync-over-async blocking — 22 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:40— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:41— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:51— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:52— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:64— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:65— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:79— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:80— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:96— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:97— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:115— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:116— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:123— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:124— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:133— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:134— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:145— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:146— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:159— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:160— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:175— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:176— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:39— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:40— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:50— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:51— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:63— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:64— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:78— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:79— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:95— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:96— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:114— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:115— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:122— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:123— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:132— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:133— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:144— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:145— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:158— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:159— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:174— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:175— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
DeadPreprocessorBranch lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:6— #if SYSTEM_PRIVATE_CORELIB — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
DeadPreprocessorBranch lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:92— #if SYSTEM_PRIVATE_CORELIB — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
DeadPreprocessorBranch lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:168— #if SYSTEM_PRIVATE_CORELIB — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
DeadPreprocessorBranch lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:231— #if SYSTEM_PRIVATE_CORELIB — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
DeadPreprocessorBranch lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:241— #if SYSTEM_PRIVATE_CORELIB — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
DeadPreprocessorBranch lib/runtime-local/RegexParseError.cs:13— #if SYSTEM_TEXT_REGULAREXPRESSIONS — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
DeadPreprocessorBranch lib/runtime-local/RegexParseException.cs:14— #if SYSTEM_TEXT_REGULAREXPRESSIONS — no definition of that symbol was found anywhere this analysis looks: not in a <DefineConstants> in any project file, props or targets under any condition, not on a build script's command line, not in a #define, and not in a project-template manifest; nor is it one the compiler or SDK defines itself. On that evidence the condition is decided the same way in every configuration this repository can build, and the code on the dead side of it never compiles — including the part a reader will assume is what ships. Either define the symbol in the configuration that is supposed to have it, or delete the branch and keep the behaviour you are actually shipping. If some other mechanism binds it, that mechanism is outside the list above and this row is a gap in what we read, not a fact about your code.
FileTooLong: Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs— FileTooLong — 2492 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1992 over it, 4.98× 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: Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs— FileTooLong — 1369 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 869 over it, 2.74× 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: Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs— FileTooLong — 1274 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 774 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: Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs— FileTooLong — 1017 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 517 over it, 2.03× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Resharp/Optimizations.fs src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs— FileTooLong — 796 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 296 over it, 1.59× 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: Resharp/fsil.fs src/Resharp/fsil.fs— FileTooLong — 611 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 34 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 111 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.
MethodTooLong: RegexNode.ReduceAlternation src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:889— MethodTooLong — ReduceAlternation runs 220 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 120 over it, 2.20× 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: ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:223— MethodTooLong — ScanRegex runs 177 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 77 over it, 1.77× 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: ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:733— MethodTooLong — ScanGroupOpen runs 142 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 42 over it, 1.42× 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: RegexNode.CanBeMadeAtomic src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1990— MethodTooLong — CanBeMadeAtomic runs 111 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 11 over it, 1.11× 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: ExtendedRegexParser.ScanCharClass src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:546— MethodTooLong — ScanCharClass runs 105 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 5 over it, 1.05× 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.
TooManyMethods: ExtendedRegexParser src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs— TooManyMethods — 1265 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 81 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 51 over it, 2.70× 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.
TooManyMethods: RegexCharClass src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs— TooManyMethods — 999 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 63 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 33 over it, 2.10× 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.
TooManyMethods: RegexBuilder`1 src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:291— TooManyMethods — 55 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 25 over it, 1.83× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: RegexNode src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs— TooManyMethods — 1352 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 47 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 17 over it, 1.57× 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.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:54— src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:54-62 | src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:108-116 — 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/Resharp/Patterns.fs:105— src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:105-113 | src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:127-135 — 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/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1585— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1585-1593 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1761-1769 — 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/Resharp/Types.fs:430— src/Resharp/Types.fs:430-438 | src/Resharp/Types.fs:446-454 — 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) src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:117— src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:117-123 | src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:139-145 — 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) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:915— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:915-921 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:925-931 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:915` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1154— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1154-1160 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1164-1170 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1154` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2598— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2598-2604 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2638-2644 — 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.
TodoComment src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:899— // todo: implement optimizations for negations — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1500— // todo: figure out what to do with negations — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1546— // TODO: figure out what to do with negations in concats — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:945— src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:945-965 | src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1514-1534 — 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 (21 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:21— src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:21-41 | src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:81-101 — 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 (21 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2941— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2941-2961 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2992-3012 — 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 (8 lines × 2) src/Resharp.Runtime/BitVector.cs:91— src/Resharp.Runtime/BitVector.cs:91-98 | src/Resharp.Runtime/BitVector.cs:108-115 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Resharp.Runtime/BitVector.cs:91` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:913— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:913-920 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1152-1159 — 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 (8 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:923— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:923-930 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1162-1169 — 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.
RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixText (cyclomatic 21) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1169— RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixText 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (RegexNode.ReduceAlternation, RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixOneNotoneSet) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixOneNotoneSet (cyclomatic 19) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1042— RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixOneNotoneSet has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (RegexNode.ReduceAlternation, RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixText) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
CoverageExclusion src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2702— method ToString — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2735— method Describe — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixText (cognitive 46) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1169— RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixText has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (28 pts), loops 4 (9 pts), ternaries 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 25). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (RegexNode.ReduceAlternation, RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixOneNotoneSet) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 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.
RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixOneNotoneSet (cognitive 20) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1042— RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixOneNotoneSet has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (RegexNode.ReduceAlternation, RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixText) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 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.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:479— src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:479-495 | src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:518-534 — 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) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:990— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:990-1006 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1015-1031 — 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) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:3163— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:3163-3177 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:3179-3193 — 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Resharp/fsil.fs:150— src/Resharp/fsil.fs:150-164 | src/Resharp/fsil.fs:177-191 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Resharp/fsil.fs:150` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:871— src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:871-882 | src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:891-903 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:871` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Info.fs:14— src/Resharp/Info.fs:14-26 | src/Resharp/Info.fs:53-64 — 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) src/Resharp/Regex.fs:1369— src/Resharp/Regex.fs:1369-1381 | src/Resharp/Regex.fs:1399-1411 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Resharp/Regex.fs:1369` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:950— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:950-962 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:967-979 — 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) src/Resharp/Info.fs:27— src/Resharp/Info.fs:27-32 | src/Resharp/Info.fs:72-77 — 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) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:983— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:983-988 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1008-1013 — 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.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs· Bound check compiled out of the shipping build · ×2
Bound check compiled out of the shipping build src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:344— The only thing establishing that `bytes` is long enough before it is indexed is a `Debug.Assert`, which is `[Conditional("DEBUG")]` — the compiler deletes the call from Release, so the build your users install indexes `bytes` with no length check at all and throws at the indexer instead of failing diagnosably. `bytes` comes from outside this method, so its length is a contract, not something this code can see. Bound it with a check that ships (`if (bytes.Count < n) throw …`, or `ArgumentOutOfRangeException.ThrowIfLessThan`), and keep the assert for the invariant you believe holds.
Bound check compiled out of the shipping build src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:1065— The only thing establishing that `twoChars` is long enough before it is indexed is a `Debug.Assert`, which is `[Conditional("DEBUG")]` — the compiler deletes the call from Release, so the build your users install indexes `twoChars` with no length check at all and throws at the indexer instead of failing diagnosably. `twoChars` comes from outside this method, so its length is a contract, not something this code can see. Bound it with a check that ships (`if (twoChars.Count < n) throw …`, or `ArgumentOutOfRangeException.ThrowIfLessThan`), and keep the assert for the invariant you believe holds.
RegexNode.CanBeMadeAtomic (cyclomatic 82) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1990— RegexNode.CanBeMadeAtomic has cyclomatic complexity 82 (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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex (cyclomatic 75) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:223— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex has cyclomatic complexity 75 (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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen (cyclomatic 73) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:733— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen has cyclomatic complexity 73 (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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanCharClass (cyclomatic 62) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:546— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanCharClass has cyclomatic complexity 62 (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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkOr2 (cyclomatic 49) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:814— RegexBuilder`1.mkOr2 has cyclomatic complexity 49 (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.
RegexNode.ValidateFinalTreeInvariants (cyclomatic 48) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:173— RegexNode.ValidateFinalTreeInvariants has cyclomatic complexity 48 (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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2 (cyclomatic 48) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2060— RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2 has cyclomatic complexity 48 (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.
RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentLoops (cyclomatic 47) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1586— RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentLoops has cyclomatic complexity 47 (threshold 15). Of this number, 41 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to one function item inside it that branches. 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd (cyclomatic 46) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1204— RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd has cyclomatic complexity 46 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
RegexNode.Describe (cyclomatic 45) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2735— RegexNode.Describe 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.
RegexNode.ComputeMaxLength (cyclomatic 43) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2292— RegexNode.ComputeMaxLength has cyclomatic complexity 43 (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: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBasicBackslash (cyclomatic 41) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:1094— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBasicBackslash has cyclomatic complexity 41 (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.
RegexCharClass.Canonicalize (cyclomatic 39) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:1678— RegexCharClass.Canonicalize has cyclomatic complexity 39 (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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkOr (cyclomatic 38) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1823— RegexBuilder`1.mkOr has cyclomatic complexity 38 (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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd2 (cyclomatic 37) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1073— RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd2 has cyclomatic complexity 37 (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.
RegexNode.derivative (cyclomatic 36) src/Resharp/Algorithm.fs:117— RegexNode.derivative has cyclomatic complexity 36 (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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBackslash (cyclomatic 35) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:1018— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBackslash has cyclomatic complexity 35 (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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanDollar (cyclomatic 34) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:1193— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanDollar 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.
Helpers.printNode (cyclomatic 33) src/Resharp/Types.fs:371— Helpers.printNode has cyclomatic complexity 33 (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.
RegexNode.ReduceAtomic (cyclomatic 32) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:562— RegexNode.ReduceAtomic has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
RegexNode.ReduceAlternation (cyclomatic 28) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:889— RegexNode.ReduceAlternation 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixOneNotoneSet, RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixText) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
Optimizations.findInitialOptimizations (cyclomatic 28) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:669— Optimizations.findInitialOptimizations 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.
CharSetSolver.ApplyBinaryOp (cyclomatic 27) src/Resharp.Runtime/CharSetSolver.cs:265— CharSetSolver.ApplyBinaryOp 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.
RegexCharClass.DescribeSet (cyclomatic 27) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:1870— RegexCharClass.DescribeSet 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.
RegexNode.ReduceLoops (cyclomatic 27) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:725— RegexNode.ReduceLoops 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
ExtendedRegexParser.CountCaptures (cyclomatic 26) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:1563— ExtendedRegexParser.CountCaptures 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrGroupedLoops (cyclomatic 26) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1596— RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrGroupedLoops has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2_concatTailCase (cyclomatic 25) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2403— RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2_concatTailCase has cyclomatic complexity 25 (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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkLoop (cyclomatic 25) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:3132— RegexBuilder`1.mkLoop has cyclomatic complexity 25 (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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBlank (cyclomatic 24) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:973— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBlank has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
RegexCharClass.TryGetOnlyCategories (cyclomatic 24) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:648— RegexCharClass.TryGetOnlyCategories 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkConcatChecked (cyclomatic 24) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2826— RegexBuilder`1.mkConcatChecked 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.
RegexNode.EliminateEndingBacktracking (cyclomatic 23) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:380— RegexNode.EliminateEndingBacktracking has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
RegexBuilder`1.attemptRewriteCommonLookahead (cyclomatic 23) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2702— RegexBuilder`1.attemptRewriteCommonLookahead 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.
Optimizations.getPrefixNodeCore (cyclomatic 22) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:253— Optimizations.getPrefixNodeCore has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
Optimizations.attemptCompileFullDfa (cyclomatic 22) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:439— Optimizations.attemptCompileFullDfa has cyclomatic complexity 22 (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.
Node.computeMaxLength (cyclomatic 22) src/Resharp/Info.fs:52— Node.computeMaxLength has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
RegexNode.TryGetOrdinalCaseInsensitiveString (cyclomatic 21) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2424— RegexNode.TryGetOrdinalCaseInsensitiveString 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
RegexBuilder`1.mkLookaround (cyclomatic 21) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2492— RegexBuilder`1.mkLookaround has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
Node.computeMinLength (cyclomatic 21) src/Resharp/Info.fs:14— Node.computeMinLength has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
BDD.prettyPrintBDD (cyclomatic 21) src/Resharp/Common.fs:74— BDD.prettyPrintBDD 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.
BDDRangeConverter.ToRangesFromOrdinal (cyclomatic 20) src/Resharp.Runtime/BDDRangeConverter.cs:97— BDDRangeConverter.ToRangesFromOrdinal has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
RegexCharClass.MayOverlap (cyclomatic 19) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:887— RegexCharClass.MayOverlap has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 10 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 2 function items inside it that branch. 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.
RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentStrings (cyclomatic 18) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1488— RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentStrings 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
RegexNode.isNullable (cyclomatic 18) src/Resharp/Algorithm.fs:89— RegexNode.isNullable has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
RegexBuilder`1.stripPrefixSuffix (cyclomatic 18) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2622— RegexBuilder`1.stripPrefixSuffix 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.
RegexNode.FindAndMakeLoopsAtomic (cyclomatic 17) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1748— RegexNode.FindAndMakeLoopsAtomic has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function item inside it that branches (ProcessNode). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
RegexNode.rev (cyclomatic 17) src/Resharp/Algorithm.fs:14— RegexNode.rev 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.
RegexNode.ReduceSet (cyclomatic 16) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:828— RegexNode.ReduceSet 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. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: RegexNode.ComputeMinLength (cyclomatic 44) 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 method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
Optimizations.getFixedPrefixLength (cyclomatic 16) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:860— Optimizations.getFixedPrefixLength has cyclomatic complexity 16 (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.
Deprecated: xunit Directory.Packages.props:11— xunit 2.8.1 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `xunit.v3`; that is the next major line under a new package id, so the move is a breaking rename rather than a version bump — budget for API changes in the code that uses it, not only the reference swap.
Hotspot: src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:669— src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 28 in Optimizations.findInitialOptimizations at line 669. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 1 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 2026-07-05..2026-10-03, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-05 20:28:47 +03:00' --until='2026-10-03 20:28:47 +03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs`: 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkOr2 (cognitive 169) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:814— RegexBuilder`1.mkOr2 has cognitive complexity 169 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (89 pts), match/switch 13 (76 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 126). 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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen (cognitive 166) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:733— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen has cognitive complexity 166 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd (cognitive 158) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1204— RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd has cognitive complexity 158 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 16 (85 pts), if/else 14 (42 pts), loops 5 (26 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 118). 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2 (cognitive 149) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2060— RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2 has cognitive complexity 149 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 20 (105 pts), if/else 11 (29 pts), boolean chains 8, loops 1 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 109). 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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex (cognitive 133) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:223— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex has cognitive complexity 133 (threshold 15). 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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanCharClass (cognitive 123) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:546— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanCharClass has cognitive complexity 123 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RegexBuilder`1.mkConcatChecked (cognitive 112) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2826— RegexBuilder`1.mkConcatChecked has cognitive complexity 112 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 11 (60 pts), if/else 10 (39 pts), loops 2 (13 pts) (nesting depth added 89). 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkOr (cognitive 105) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1823— RegexBuilder`1.mkOr has cognitive complexity 105 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (49 pts), match/switch 9 (31 pts), loops 6 (21 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 70). 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.
Optimizations.findInitialOptimizations (cognitive 98) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:669— Optimizations.findInitialOptimizations has cognitive complexity 98 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28 (68 pts), match/switch 7 (30 pts) (nesting depth added 63). 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd2 (cognitive 93) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1073— RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd2 has cognitive complexity 93 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (64 pts), match/switch 7 (23 pts), boolean chains 6 (nesting depth added 58). 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.
RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentLoops (cognitive 87) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1586— RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentLoops has cognitive complexity 87 (threshold 15). Of this number, 79 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to one function item inside it that branches. 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.
RegexNode.derivative (cognitive 82) src/Resharp/Algorithm.fs:117— RegexNode.derivative has cognitive complexity 82 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 11 (43 pts), if/else 12 (31 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 55). 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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBasicBackslash (cognitive 78) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:1094— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBasicBackslash has cognitive complexity 78 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RegexCharClass.Canonicalize (cognitive 75) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:1678— RegexCharClass.Canonicalize has cognitive complexity 75 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
BDDRangeConverter.ToRangesFromOrdinal (cognitive 72) src/Resharp.Runtime/BDDRangeConverter.cs:97— BDDRangeConverter.ToRangesFromOrdinal has cognitive complexity 72 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
RegexNode.ReduceAtomic (cognitive 68) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:562— RegexNode.ReduceAtomic has cognitive complexity 68 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ExtendedRegexParser.CountCaptures (cognitive 66) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:1563— ExtendedRegexParser.CountCaptures has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RegexNode.ReduceAlternation (cognitive 63) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:889— RegexNode.ReduceAlternation has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). 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 shape REPEATS in the file: 2 other methods here (RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixOneNotoneSet, RegexNode.ReduceAlternation::ExtractCommonPrefixText) have the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written 3 times rather than 3 independent problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other 2 exactly as they are. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears all 3 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2_concatTailCase (cognitive 63) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2403— RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2_concatTailCase has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (33 pts), match/switch 9 (27 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 36). 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.
RegexNode.CanBeMadeAtomic (cognitive 61) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1990— RegexNode.CanBeMadeAtomic has cognitive complexity 61 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Optimizations.attemptCompileFullDfa (cognitive 60) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:439— Optimizations.attemptCompileFullDfa has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (32 pts), loops 9 (24 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 36). 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.
RegexCharClass.DescribeSet (cognitive 55) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:1870— RegexCharClass.DescribeSet has cognitive complexity 55 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanDollar (cognitive 52) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:1193— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanDollar has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RegexCharClass.TryGetOnlyCategories (cognitive 49) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:648— RegexCharClass.TryGetOnlyCategories has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). 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.
RegexBuilder`1.stripPrefixSuffix (cognitive 47) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2622— RegexBuilder`1.stripPrefixSuffix has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (27 pts), if/else 9 (20 pts) (nesting depth added 32). 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkLoop (cognitive 46) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:3132— RegexBuilder`1.mkLoop has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (33 pts), match/switch 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 6 (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.
RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrGroupedLoops (cognitive 45) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1596— RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrGroupedLoops has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (24 pts), if/else 5 (15 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (nesting depth added 26). 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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBlank (cognitive 44) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:973— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBlank has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). 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.
ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBackslash (cognitive 42) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:1018— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanBackslash has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). 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.
Optimizations.getPrefixNodeCore (cognitive 41) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:253— Optimizations.getPrefixNodeCore has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (24 pts), if/else 2 (7 pts), loops 2 (7 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 27). 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkLookaround (cognitive 41) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2492— RegexBuilder`1.mkLookaround has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 9 (30 pts), if/else 8 (9 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 22). 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.
CharSetSolver.ApplyBinaryOp (cognitive 40) src/Resharp.Runtime/CharSetSolver.cs:265— CharSetSolver.ApplyBinaryOp has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). 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.
RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentStrings (cognitive 40) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1488— RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentStrings has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). 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.
RegexNode.ReduceLoops (cognitive 39) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:725— RegexNode.ReduceLoops has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). 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.
RegexNode.Describe (cognitive 35) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2735— RegexNode.Describe has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ResharpRegexNodeConverter.Compute (cognitive 35) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:66— ResharpRegexNodeConverter.Compute has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (28 pts), loops 3 (7 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.
Helpers.printNode (cognitive 34) src/Resharp/Types.fs:371— Helpers.printNode has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (19 pts), match/switch 6 (11 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 9). 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.
RegexNode.ComputeMaxLength (cognitive 32) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2292— RegexNode.ComputeMaxLength has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). 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.
BDD.prettyPrintBDD (cognitive 32) src/Resharp/Common.fs:74— BDD.prettyPrintBDD has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (26 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 16). 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.
Node.computeMaxLength (cognitive 31) src/Resharp/Info.fs:52— Node.computeMaxLength has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), match/switch 5 (11 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 17). 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.
RegexNode.FindAndMakeLoopsAtomic (cognitive 30) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1748— RegexNode.FindAndMakeLoopsAtomic has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 30 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function item inside it that branches (ProcessNode). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrIntersections (cognitive 30) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1452— RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrIntersections has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (7 pts), boolean chains 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.
BDD.SerializeToBytes (cognitive 27) src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:298— BDD.SerializeToBytes has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ExtendedRegexParser.AssignNameSlots (cognitive 27) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:1692— ExtendedRegexParser.AssignNameSlots has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). 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.
Node.computeMinLength (cognitive 27) src/Resharp/Info.fs:14— Node.computeMinLength has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (11 pts), match/switch 5 (11 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). 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.
RegexBuilder`1.attemptRewriteCommonLookahead (cognitive 25) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2702— RegexBuilder`1.attemptRewriteCommonLookahead has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (16 pts), if/else 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
RegexCharClass.CharInCategory (cognitive 24) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:1393— RegexCharClass.CharInCategory has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). 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.
RegexNode.TryGetOrdinalCaseInsensitiveString (cognitive 24) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2424— RegexNode.TryGetOrdinalCaseInsensitiveString has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). 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.
Accelerators.trySkipToWeightedSetCharRev (cognitive 23) src/Resharp/Accelerators.fs:6— Accelerators.trySkipToWeightedSetCharRev has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
RegexNode.EliminateEndingBacktracking (cognitive 22) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:380— RegexNode.EliminateEndingBacktracking has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). 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.
RegexNode.ReduceSet (cognitive 22) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:828— RegexNode.ReduceSet has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
BDD.IsEssentiallyBoolean (cognitive 21) src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:443— BDD.IsEssentiallyBoolean has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). 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.
RegexNode.isNullable (cognitive 21) src/Resharp/Algorithm.fs:89— RegexNode.isNullable has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (11 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (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.
BDD.TopologicalSort (cognitive 19) src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:238— BDD.TopologicalSort has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). 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.
RegexCharClass.MayOverlap (cognitive 19) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:887— RegexCharClass.MayOverlap has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 19 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function items inside it that branch (MayOverlapByEnumeration, KnownDistinctSets). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
Optimizations.isTooCommon (cognitive 19) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:632— Optimizations.isTooCommon has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (6 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RegexNode.rev (cognitive 19) src/Resharp/Algorithm.fs:14— RegexNode.rev has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (13 pts), loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
RegexBuilder`1.stripSuffixes (cognitive 19) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2584— RegexBuilder`1.stripSuffixes has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (17 pts), if/else 2 (nesting depth added 12). 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.
Optimizations.inferLengthLookup (cognitive 17) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:904— Optimizations.inferLengthLookup has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, if/else 2 (nesting depth added 7). 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.
RegexCharClass.AddCaseEquivalences (cognitive 16) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:477— RegexCharClass.AddCaseEquivalences has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). 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.
Optimizations.calcPotentialMatchStart (cognitive 16) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:387— Optimizations.calcPotentialMatchStart has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 3 (10 pts), if/else 4 (5 pts), 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrLookaheads (cognitive 16) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1495— RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrLookaheads has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (8 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), if/else 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:516— src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:516-539 | src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:546-569 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1774— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1774-1793 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1799-1818 — 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 (15–20 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2072— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2072-2086 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2261-2280 — 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (15–18 lines × 2) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2256— src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2256-2273 | src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2386-2400 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:384— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:384-401 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:428-444 — 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) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:404— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:404-419 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:447-462 — 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 (13–15 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2646— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2646-2660 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2662-2674 — 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 × 3) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:405— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:405-418 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:448-461 | src/Resharp/Types.fs:343-356 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (10–14 lines × 2) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1042— src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1042-1051 | src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1169-1182 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1042` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Regex.fs:773— src/Resharp/Regex.fs:773-786 | src/Resharp/Regex.fs:818-831 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Resharp/fsil.fs:123— src/Resharp/fsil.fs:123-134 | src/Resharp/fsil.fs:136-148 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Resharp/fsil.fs:136` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1571— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1571-1581 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1747-1757 — 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 (8–10 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexNodeConverter.fs:265— src/Resharp/RegexNodeConverter.fs:265-274 | src/Resharp/RegexNodeConverter.fs:279-286 — 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 (8–9 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1601— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1601-1609 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1643-1650 — 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 × 4) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:915— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:915-920 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:925-930 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1154-1159 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1164-1169 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:915` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:10— src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:10-15 | src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:34-39 | src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:42-47 — 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 (5 lines × 3) src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:111— src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:111-115 | src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:117-121 | src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:139-143 — 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.
CRAP 2186: RegexNode.CanBeMadeAtomic src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1990— Cyclomatic 82 with 32.1% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 1741: RegexNode.ReduceAlternation src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:889— Cyclomatic 73 with 32.1% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 1174: ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:223— Cyclomatic 75 with 42.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 1114: ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:733— Cyclomatic 73 with 42.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 813: ExtendedRegexParser.ScanCharClass src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:546— Cyclomatic 62 with 42.0% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 769: RegexNode.ValidateFinalTreeInvariants src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:173— Cyclomatic 48 with 32.1% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 738: RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentLoops src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1586— Cyclomatic 47 with 32.1% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 679: RegexNode.Describe src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2735— Cyclomatic 45 with 32.1% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
Commented-out code lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:55— A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:56— A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:57— A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code lib/runtime-local/HexConverter.cs:58— A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:329— A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:496— A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:490— A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexTree.cs:81— A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Outdated: coverlet.collector Directory.Packages.props:8— coverlet.collector 6.0.2 → 10.1.0 available (referenced by Resharp.Test).
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 2 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `Resharp.Runtime(net8.0)` (11136 LoC, 49 public types across 23 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the assembly first (group each responsibility into its own namespace/folder and keep the cross-boundary members internal), since splitting a published assembly moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
Scattered collaborators — 92 % of calls cross a namespace and only 39 % of collaborators are co-located — group each feature's code into a vertical slice so a call's collaborators sit together.
D28 · Secrets (history)· Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
IL efficiency: 41 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget — 41 of 1121 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: Resharp.RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2, 1650 IL instructions; that pulled this dimension to 9.3/10. These bodies are far past the JIT's inline budget, so splitting them does not make them inlinable — what moves the number is emitting less: collapsing LINQ chains and closures on hot paths, and interpolation built eagerly where it is only sometimes used.
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.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
README/code drift README.md:14— README.md installs the package `Resharp` (`dotnet add package Resharp`), but no project or props file references it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
Changelog looks stale/thin — The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either the distinct `x.y.z` versions it names (a link's target is not counted) or its version-shaped section headings (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.
Benchmarks don't track allocations — A BenchmarkDotNet suite exists but no [MemoryDiagnoser] — allocations (the main way hot code pressures the GC) aren't being measured.
Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~1.3 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 135 suppression(s) across the 104728 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
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.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 6 file(s) — `lib/runtime-local/ValueListBuilder.Pop.cs`, `lib/runtime-local/ValueListBuilder.cs`, `lib/runtime-local/ValueStringBuilder.cs`, `src/Resharp.Runtime/BitVectorSolver.cs`, `src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs`, … (+1 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.
provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
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.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
0
—
Run 01a16a98-616f-7e07-8910-24c59afd1bb0 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 12 · Warnings: 262 · Recommendations: 20 · Info: 5 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-10-2026 @ 21:08 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.