Public report — resharp-dotnet, published 6 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
208findings with an exact file:lineof 220 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
42/97dimensions across the health lenses11454 LoC · 4 projects — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
ieviev/resharp-dotnet is sound in substance but carries real gaps (53%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Architecture (97%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Security (77%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (39%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (58%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); 1 Leaked secret finding(s) (Secret Scanning); Keep the changelog current (Release Hygiene).
For scale: Small (~11,454 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~5.6 person-years (~3–11 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (97%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
This codebase represents roughly ~5.6 person-years of build effort (about ~€820,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 39% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — library/CLI, high decision density × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with 13-noseyparker.toml.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~5.6 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 39%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.4/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 4–9% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.4/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
The top fix pays for itself · Medium · Economics
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 0.1–0.9 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~1,525 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 13–240 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 4–9% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 376 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~1,525/year · D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.4/10 ⇒ a 4–9% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Low effort ⇒ about 1–3 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 240 months.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
15 modules, 11 dependencies — 1 dependency cycle, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
At a glance — Code Health · 67% · Adequate · gated by 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
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures
9
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, establish a continuous integration pipeline to automatically build and test every change. Next, address the single leaked secret in the configuration file to secure the codebase. Then, maintain the changelog for each release to ensure accurate version history. Additionally, improve code coverage by addressing the identified gaps in key files. Finally, document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated folder to preserve design context and consequences.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with 13-noseyparker.toml.
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
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. 39 of 42 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — 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 — 42 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, 208 of 220 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.
D27 Navigability — evaluation did not complete — Navigability not included (check did not complete) — excluded from the score.
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 (jscpd) — 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.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
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.
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.
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 the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
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 (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These 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.
50 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.
+ 45 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 RegexNode.CanBeMadeAtomic (cyclomatic 82) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with RegexNode.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex (cyclomatic 75) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ExtendedRegexParser.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen (cyclomatic 73) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ExtendedRegexParser.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.
+ 59 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 RegexBuilder`1.mkOr2 (cognitive 168) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with RegexBuilder.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen (cognitive 166) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ExtendedRegexParser.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd (cognitive 158) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with RegexBuilder.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with ExtendedRegexParser.cs, RegexCharClass.cs, RegexBuilder.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 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.
+ 10 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
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 2343 finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with RegexNode.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CRAP 1865 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.
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.
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 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with 13-noseyparker.toml. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Secret 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.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: 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.
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.
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 RE# project is exceptionally well documented: the README gives install/usage and a runnable playground with concrete syntax examples (intersection & ~_*, _ wildcard), while docs/syntax.md provides a full reference covering all three extensions (_ universal wildcard, &, ~(...)), precedence rules, and an unsupported-features note plus a dedicated API reference for Resharp.Regex that lists every supported method and its signature. The documentation is complete, clear, and well structured.
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 Value / 10Exemplary◐ 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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
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.
Secret: generic-api-key · ×7src/Resharp.Benchmarks/benchmarks/definitions/curated/13-noseyparker.toml:124detected by gitleaks finding
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed
What to do
Resolve the 7 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with cpython-226484e4.py (4), Obsoletions.cs (2), 13-noseyparker.toml. — 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).
What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.
Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.
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; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
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 Efficiency9.5 / 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.
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.
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 — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
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.
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.
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×7) — HexConverter.cs:55, HexConverter.cs:56, HexConverter.cs:58, …
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
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 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 `NNNN-title.md` documents 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/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
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.
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 (it analyses VB.NET too), or a 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 to do
Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a 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.
A changelog exists but has few versioned entries — keep it current with each 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 library 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 — 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 a library pressures its host's 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.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a 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 in a consumer with a synchronization context.
What to do
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
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) — StackHelper.cs:39, StackHelper.cs:40, StackHelper.cs:50, …
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.
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. 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 included — 55 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
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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 — ~763256 lines of test source are present (.fs) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
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 exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 18k LoC the codebase is small despite four projects, so its size alone makes it not need explicit boundaries.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — Navigability not included (check did not complete)
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); 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.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, 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 check looks for (3 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check 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 check 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.
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
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 but no domain-layer files were identified (no /Domain//Aggregates/ paths)
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.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
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.
Leaked secret: high-entropy-secret src/Resharp.Benchmarks/benchmarks/definitions/curated/13-noseyparker.toml:108— high-entropy-secret detected. Treat the value as compromised: it is readable by everyone who has ever had the repository, and deleting the line does not un-publish it. In order — (1) REVOKE it at whatever issued it and issue a replacement, which is the only step that actually closes the exposure; (2) load the replacement at run time from your platform's secret store or the process environment instead of from the tree, so no future value is committable; (3) remove the file or line and add its path to the repository's ignore rules, so it cannot come back; (4) if the value was ever live, purge it from the history as well, since a clone taken before the deletion still carries it. If this is instead a FIXTURE — key material generated for tests and valid nowhere — then the exposure is nil and the fix is to make that legible: generate it in test setup, or keep it under a test-data path, so a reader (and this scan) can tell it from the real thing.
FileTooLong: Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:0— FileTooLong — 2484 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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:0— FileTooLong — 1369 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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:0— FileTooLong — 1274 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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:0— FileTooLong — 1017 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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:0— FileTooLong — 828 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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:0— FileTooLong — 611 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Types.fs:431— src/Resharp/Types.fs:431-438 | src/Resharp/Types.fs:447-454 — 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 (8 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:106— src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:106-113 | src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:128-135 — 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 (8 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:904— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:904-911 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1143-1150 — 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:914— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:914-921 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1153-1160 — 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/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 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:57— src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:57-66 | src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:111-118 — 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.
TooManyMethods: ExtendedRegexParser src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 1265 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 81 methods. 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:0— TooManyMethods — 999 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 63 methods. 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:284— TooManyMethods — 55 methods. 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:0— TooManyMethods — 1352 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 47 methods. 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: AbstractModule src/Resharp/fsil.fs:713— TooManyMethods — 34 methods. 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 (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:973— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:973-979 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:998-1004 — 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:1144— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1144-1150 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1154-1160 — 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:1144` 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:2588— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2588-2594 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2628-2634 — 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/Minterms.fs:21— src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:21-27 | src/Resharp/Minterms.fs:81-87 — 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 (14 lines × 2) src/Resharp/fsil.fs:150— src/Resharp/fsil.fs:150-163 | src/Resharp/fsil.fs:177-190 — 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 (14 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:941— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:941-954 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:958-971 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:473— src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:473-486 | src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:512-525 — 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/RegexBuilder.fs:380— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:380-392 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:424-435 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:985— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:985-996 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1010-1021 — 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/RegexBuilder.fs:2064— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2064-2075 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2253-2268 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:871— src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:871-881 | src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:891-902 — 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 (11 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2639— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2639-2649 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2653-2663 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Regex.fs:775— src/Resharp/Regex.fs:775-785 | src/Resharp/Regex.fs:820-830 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1561— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1561-1570 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1737-1746 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1773— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1773-1782 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1798-1807 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:3153— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:3153-3162 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:3170-3179 — 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.Runtime/BitVector.cs:90— src/Resharp.Runtime/BitVector.cs:90-98 | src/Resharp.Runtime/BitVector.cs:107-115 — 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:90` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Info.fs:15— src/Resharp/Info.fs:15-23 | src/Resharp/Info.fs:53-61 — 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:1575— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1575-1583 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1751-1759 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:516— src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:516-535 | src/Resharp.Runtime/BDD.cs:546-565 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2932— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2932-2951 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2983-3002 — 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.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:951— src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:951-965 | src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1520-1534 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:951` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:63— lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:63-77 | lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:158-173 — 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 (13 lines × 2) lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:50— lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:50-62 | lib/runtime-local/StackHelper.cs:144-157 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. 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 (13 lines × 2) src/Resharp/fsil.fs:123— src/Resharp/fsil.fs:123-135 | src/Resharp/fsil.fs:136-149 — 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. 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 (5 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:893— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:893-897 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:898-902 — 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 (5 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2172— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2172-2177 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2399-2403 — 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.
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.
RegexNode.ReduceAlternation (cyclomatic 73) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:889— RegexNode.ReduceAlternation 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.
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:2050— 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkOr2 (cyclomatic 48) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:807— RegexBuilder`1.mkOr2 has cyclomatic complexity 48 (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.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentLoops (cyclomatic 47) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1586— RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentLoops has cyclomatic complexity 47 (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.mkAnd (cyclomatic 46) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1194— 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.
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:1813— 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:1063— 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.
Optimizations.findInitialOptimizations (cyclomatic 28) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:663— 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.
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:1586— 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:2393— 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:3122— 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:2816— 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.
RegexBuilder`1.attemptRewriteCommonLookahead (cyclomatic 23) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2692— 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:433— 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkLookaround (cyclomatic 21) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2482— 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). 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.
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:2612— 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). 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.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.
Optimizations.getFixedPrefixLength (cyclomatic 16) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:854— 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.
Hotspot: src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs— src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 28. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
RegexBuilder`1.mkOr2 (cognitive 168) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:807— RegexBuilder`1.mkOr2 has cognitive complexity 168 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 89, match/switch 76, boolean chains 3 (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:1194— RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd has cognitive complexity 158 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 85, if/else 42, loops 26, 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:2050— RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2 has cognitive complexity 149 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 105, if/else 29, boolean chains 8, loops 7 (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.
RegexNode.ReduceAlternation (cognitive 142) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:889— RegexNode.ReduceAlternation has cognitive complexity 142 (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.ScanRegex (cognitive 133) src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:223— ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex has cognitive complexity 133 (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.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:2816— RegexBuilder`1.mkConcatChecked has cognitive complexity 112 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 60, if/else 39, loops 13 (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:1813— RegexBuilder`1.mkOr has cognitive complexity 105 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 49, match/switch 31, loops 21, 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:663— Optimizations.findInitialOptimizations has cognitive complexity 98 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 68, match/switch 30 (nesting depth added 63). 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.mkAnd2 (cognitive 93) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1063— RegexBuilder`1.mkAnd2 has cognitive complexity 93 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 64, match/switch 23, 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). 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.derivative (cognitive 82) src/Resharp/Algorithm.fs:117— RegexNode.derivative has cognitive complexity 82 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 43, if/else 31, loops 6, 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.
RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2_concatTailCase (cognitive 63) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2393— RegexBuilder`1.mkConcat2_concatTailCase has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 33, match/switch 27, 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:433— Optimizations.attemptCompileFullDfa has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 32, loops 24, 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, 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.stripPrefixSuffix (cognitive 47) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:2612— RegexBuilder`1.stripPrefixSuffix has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 27, if/else 20 (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:3122— RegexBuilder`1.mkLoop has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 33, match/switch 7, 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:1586— RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrGroupedLoops has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 24, if/else 15, 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, 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.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 24, if/else 7, loops 7, 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:2482— RegexBuilder`1.mkLookaround has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 30, if/else 9, 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, 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.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:59— ResharpRegexNodeConverter.Compute has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28, loops 7 (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 19, match/switch 11, 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.
Optimizations.inferLengthLookup (cognitive 33) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:898— Optimizations.inferLengthLookup has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 29, boolean chains 2, if/else 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.
RegexNode.ComputeMaxLength (cognitive 32) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2292— RegexNode.ComputeMaxLength has cognitive complexity 32 (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.prettyPrintBDD (cognitive 32) src/Resharp/Common.fs:74— BDD.prettyPrintBDD has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26, match/switch 6 (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 15, match/switch 11, loops 4, 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). 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.mergeOrIntersections (cognitive 30) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1442— RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrIntersections has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, loops 7, match/switch 7, 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, 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.
Node.computeMinLength (cognitive 27) src/Resharp/Info.fs:14— Node.computeMinLength has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, match/switch 11, loops 4, 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:2692— RegexBuilder`1.attemptRewriteCommonLookahead has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 16, if/else 6, 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, 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.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 13, loops 5, match/switch 3, 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 11, loops 6, boolean chains 2, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity· _17_ThreadSafetyTests.concurrent access with complement and intersection (cognitive 20) · ×1
_17_ThreadSafetyTests.concurrent access with complement and intersection (cognitive 20) src/Resharp.Test/_17_ThreadSafetyTests.fs:263— _17_ThreadSafetyTests.concurrent access with complement and intersection has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 8, error handling 7, if/else 3, match/switch 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.
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). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Optimizations.isTooCommon (cognitive 19) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:626— Optimizations.isTooCommon has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6, loops 6, match/switch 6, 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 13, loops 6 (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:2574— RegexBuilder`1.stripSuffixes has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 17, 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.
_17_ThreadSafetyTests.concurrent FirstEnd and LongestEnd (cognitive 17) src/Resharp.Test/_17_ThreadSafetyTests.fs:309— _17_ThreadSafetyTests.concurrent FirstEnd and LongestEnd has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7, loops 6, error handling 4 (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.
RegexCharClass.AddCaseEquivalences (cognitive 16) src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexCharClass.cs:477— RegexCharClass.AddCaseEquivalences has cognitive complexity 16 (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.calcPotentialMatchStart (cognitive 16) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:381— Optimizations.calcPotentialMatchStart has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 10, if/else 5, 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:1485— RegexBuilder`1.mergeOrLookaheads has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8, loops 7, 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 (29 lines × 2) src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:934— src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:934-962 | src/Resharp/Optimizations.fs:978-1006 — 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/Types.fs:343— src/Resharp/Types.fs:343-356 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:398-411 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:441-454 — 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 (7 lines × 3) src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:10— src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:10-16 | src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:34-40 | src/Resharp/Patterns.fs:42-48 — 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. 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 (6 lines × 2) src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1591— src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1591-1597 | src/Resharp/RegexBuilder.fs:1633-1638 — 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.
CRAP 2343: RegexNode.CanBeMadeAtomic src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1990— Cyclomatic 82 with 30.5% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 1865: RegexNode.ReduceAlternation src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:889— Cyclomatic 73 with 30.5% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 1226: ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:223— Cyclomatic 75 with 41.1% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 1164: ExtendedRegexParser.ScanGroupOpen src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:733— Cyclomatic 73 with 41.1% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 849: ExtendedRegexParser.ScanCharClass src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:546— Cyclomatic 62 with 41.1% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 823: RegexNode.ValidateFinalTreeInvariants src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:173— Cyclomatic 48 with 30.5% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 790: RegexNode.ReduceConcatenationWithAdjacentLoops src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:1586— Cyclomatic 47 with 30.5% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
CRAP 726: RegexNode.Describe src/Resharp.Runtime/RegexNode.cs:2735— Cyclomatic 45 with 30.5% file coverage — too complex for how untested it is (CRAP = CC²·(1−cov)³ + CC; ≥30 needs tests or simplification).
Recommendation — 6 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not included · ×1
Test reliability not included — Test source is present (.fs) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
redundant comment lib/runtime-local/Obsoletions.cs:188— "Keep new const identifiers above this comment." — keep but only if it records why the const was added.
D27 · Navigability· Navigability not included (check did not complete) · ×1
Navigability not included (check did not complete) — Navigability could not be assessed in this run — the check did not complete, so it is not scored. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D28 · Secrets (history)· Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed — Some of these secrets are in git HISTORY: deleting the file does not remove them (the commit persists on every clone, fork and backup). The remediation is to ROTATE each historically-exposed credential and treat it as compromised — not to delete the file. Rewriting history is disruptive and unreliable across existing forks. (Working-tree-only secrets — no commit — can instead be removed from the file and moved to a secret store.) These 7 location(s) do not all need the same action: 5 sit inside a test/fixture/sample tree and 2 do not. Rotate the ones outside those trees as stated above. For the fixture ones there may be no live credential to revoke — confirm each value was never reused outside the tests (a fixture key shared with a staging or demo environment IS a live credential and must be rotated), then generate that material at test time instead of committing it, and record the deliberate exposure where a reader of the file will see it.
early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness (32 commit(s) sampled).
IL efficiency: 10 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:226— 10 of 409 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: Resharp.Runtime.ExtendedRegexParser.ScanRegex @ src/Resharp.Runtime/ExtendedRegexParser.cs:226, 605 IL instructions; large bodies don't JIT-inline, which pulled this dimension to 9.5/10; splitting the hottest bodies recovers the most.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); 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.
0
—
Run 019fd549-d0f0-757b-af26-b4e5c79d4459 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 10 · Warnings: 197 · Recommendations: 6 · Info: 7 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 06-08-2026 @ 04:16 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.