insidegui/VirtualBuddy

Executive summary

insidegui/VirtualBuddy falls short of our standard for production because we found no working pipeline that builds or tests changes to the code and no automated security scanning of the code, its secrets or its dependencies. It scores 53 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, and neither of its two critical findings concerns security.

Production Readiness, at 36, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step for the work it takes is fixing the package under a licence on your banned list, worth about 5 points. Adding an automated build and test pipeline would lift Production Readiness itself, worth about 8 points. Raising Production Readiness to 70 would lift the score to about 65.

One package carries licence risk. One set of files in separate parts keeps changing together, which points to a hidden dependency. Replacing or clearing the banned-licence packages and making the hidden dependencies explicit would close both risks.

The product code is 32,516 lines, about €34,000 to rebuild.

Code Health 82 Strong Architecture 83 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 54 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 36 Weak, capped by CI/CD gates and Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 100 ★ Exemplary Domain Modelling 100 ★ Exemplary Performance 72 Strong

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

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

Production Readiness 36 · counts for 46%Maturity 54 · counts for 25%Performance 72 · counts for 14%Code Health 82 · counts for 8%Architecture 83 · counts for 4%Security and Compliance 100 · counts for 2%Domain Modelling 100 · counts for 1%

If Production Readiness rose from 36 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 53 to about 65.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 92%Tests 8%

Rebuild cost: about €34,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€11,000 to €57,000, for 190 to 602 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 53. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 32,516 lines of product code
What it is not	Not a quotation: nobody has offered to build it for that. Not a valuation: it says nothing about what the business is worth. Not a certified figure: no professional has signed it as one.

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

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 1 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance.

Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · License Compliance

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Raises the score by about 8 points · Medium effort · CI/CD gates

Record your significant design decisions.

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

Raises the score by about 6 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €34,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 36 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

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

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

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 1 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 5 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 License Compliance findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

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

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

33 modules, with 250 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 30 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 DeepLinkSecurity~UI	2 VirtualCore~Definitions	3 VirtualCore~USB	4 VirtualUI~VM Configuration	5 VirtualUI~Library	6 VirtualUI~Components	7 VirtualUI~Session	8 VirtualCore~Utilities	9 VirtualUI~Building Blocks	10 VirtualCore~VirtualCatalog	11 VirtualInstallation~Backend	12 VirtualInstallation~XPC	13 VirtualInstallation	14 VirtualCore~ReleaseTrains	15 VirtualWormhole	16 VirtualCore~Settings	17 VirtualCore~SavedSession	18 VirtualUI~Settings	19 VirtualCore~Virtualization	20 VirtualCore~Import	21 VirtualCore~Restore	22 VirtualWormhole~Services	23 VirtualUI~Installer	24 VirtualCore~Models	25 repository	26 DeepLinkSecurity~Base	29 VirtualCore~GuestSupport	31 DeepLinkSecurity~Storage	32 DeepLinkSecurity~Models	33 DeepLinkSecurity
1 DeepLinkSecurity~UI																												1	1
2 VirtualCore~Definitions																									2
3 VirtualCore~USB							1		2																2
4 VirtualUI~VM Configuration			4			3	4		56	12			1						5					49	14	1	1
5 VirtualUI~Library				1		9	2		10								1		2					5	1
6 VirtualUI~Components					1		1	4	51				4						3					12	25	3	1		2
7 VirtualUI~Session		5		1		5		3	31	1			2			3	21		23	1				8	23	1	5
8 VirtualCore~Utilities		1					3		4	3			2											6	13	4	4
9 VirtualUI~Building Blocks						13	2	1											1					2	6
10 VirtualCore~VirtualCatalog						1	1		2				13						6					11	39		2
11 VirtualInstallation~Backend									1			2	3											1	3	3
12 VirtualInstallation~XPC		3									2		5											3	7	3	2
13 VirtualInstallation							1		2	1		2												1	4	2	1
14 VirtualCore~ReleaseTrains													1												2
15 VirtualWormhole		1					1		3				6						1					13	9	1	4
16 VirtualCore~Settings									1	1			1	1										1	2	2		2
17 VirtualCore~SavedSession		2					1		7				15			2			4					19	20	1	2
18 VirtualUI~Settings	1					1			10				1			3								1	3			2	2	1
19 VirtualCore~Virtualization		7					1	2	2				11		1	2	13							23	16	6	8
20 VirtualCore~Import																			2					7	15		7
21 VirtualCore~Restore		2					1	4					9						3					5	4	3
22 VirtualWormhole~Services						1	2		1				2						1						6	1			1
23 VirtualUI~Installer		1		1		19	1	4	41	22			5					1	6		3			18	17	1			2
24 VirtualCore~Models			1	2		4	2	1	8	6			7				1		5	7			1		24		5		1
25 repository	1	1				3	4	3	9			1	7	1	3	4		1	8			3		9		9	5	2	3	1
26 DeepLinkSecurity~Base																									3
27 VirtualUI~Definitions																									2
28 VirtualWormhole~Definitions																									1
29 VirtualCore~GuestSupport										1			2						2					3	5	1
30 VirtualCore~Restore Images										4			4											1	9	1
31 DeepLinkSecurity~Storage													4		2				2					1	5		3		5
32 DeepLinkSecurity~Models						2							5						2					2	4		1	1		1
33 DeepLinkSecurity	1												1		1													3	2

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 82% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · Swift Cyclomatic Complexity 8.3 D2 · Swift Cognitive Complexity 7.0 D3 · Swift God Classes 8.8 D4 · Swift Code Duplication 9.8 D17 · Swift Explicit Debt 9.9 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0

The Bad

X3 · Repo Exception handling 7.0

At a glance — Architecture · 83% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good

D6 · Swift Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.4 D35 · Swift Change Coupling 9.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.6 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Ugly

D26 · Swift Project Cohesion 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 54% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Swift Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.9 D34 · Swift Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

D16 · Swift Bus Factor 6.5 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.7

The Ugly

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 36% · Weak · gated by P1, P3 ·

The Good

D9 · Swift Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · Swift Test Quality 9.6 D12 · Swift Dependency Hygiene 8.5 D13 · Swift Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Swift License Compliance 8.0 P2 · Repo Observability 7.0

The Bad

P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D28 · Swift Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · Swift Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · Swift Dependency Vulnerabilities 10.0 D43 · Swift Malicious Dependencies 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0

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

The Good

DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic domain model 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 72% · Strong ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 8.5

The Bad

PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.2

Roadmap

First, establish a CI workflow to automatically build and test every push or pull request to ensure code quality. Next, document key architectural decisions in a dedicated folder to preserve design context and resolve any banned license findings. Finally, mitigate bus factor risks by cross-training team members and maintain a changelog to track release history.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance.	+4.6 pts	Low	License Compliance
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.	+7.8 pts	Medium	CI/CD gates
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+6.0 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.	+3.0 pts	Low	Bus Factor
Resolve the 1 Floating branch dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+1.6 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.	+2.8 pts	Medium	Release Hygiene
Resolve the 4 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with VBDiskResizerTests.swift (2), VMControllerSavedSessionTests.swift (2).	+0.9 pts	Low	Test Quality
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 12 use(s) across 39,434 production line(s) (~0.3/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.	+1.8 pts	Medium	Allocation hygiene

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 45 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 38% mixed · 62% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/ProvisioningConfigurationView.swift	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: HackComment
VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/Screenshot/NSImage+HEIC.swift	6.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallData.swift	6.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
VirtualUI/Source/Session/VirtualMachineSessionUI.swift	7.0	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: VirtualMachineGuestActions.body (cognitive 19)
VirtualCore/Source/Utilities/VBDiskResizer.swift	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform (cyclomatic 34)
VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SessionLifecycleCoordination.swift	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform (cyclomatic 22)
VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMLibraryController.swift	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: VMLibraryController.loadMachines (cyclomatic 16)
VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallationViewModel.swift	7.2	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: VMInstallationViewModel._runMacInstallation (cognitive 19)
VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: SharedFoldersManagementView.body (cyclomatic 20)
VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMController.swift	7.4	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: Virtualization/VMController.swift
VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.swift	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.scheduleRecovery (cyclomatic 21)
VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SavedSessionEligibility.swift	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: SavedSessionRuntimeDescription.firstDifference (cyclomatic 17)
VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/GuestAppConfigurationView.swift	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: GuestAppConfigurationView.body (cyclomatic 17)
VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Storage/ManagedDiskImageEditor.swift	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ManagedDiskImageEditor.body (cyclomatic 17)
VirtualCore/Source/VirtualCatalog/Utilities/BlurHashEncode.swift	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (5 lines × 2)
VirtualCoreTests/VBDiskResizerTests.swift	7.8	Mixed	Test Quality: No assertions: testCorruptGPTHeaderIsIgnored
VirtualCoreTests/VMControllerSavedSessionTests.swift	7.8	Mixed	Test Quality: No assertions: controllerForInterruptedSessionRequiresRecovery
VirtualCore/Source/Models/Configuration/ConfigurationModels+Validation.swift	8.0	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: ConfigurationModels+Validation.swift ↔ VMConfigurationView.swift
VirtualUI/Source/Settings/SettingsScreen.swift	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: HackComment
VirtualUI/Source/Components/HostingWindowController/WindowEnvironment.swift	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

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

Critical — 2

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 93

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 11

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

Could not be resolved — 40

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 39 of 39 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 39 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D16D17D26D28D29D30D34D35D43AX10AX9DM4DM5DM6M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P6PF2PF3X14X26X28X3

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, 93 of 106 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a17793-f292-7ba2-a244-9184f88852f9.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D5 Coupling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D20 ADR Quality — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The ADR expectation is gated on whether a repository ships a deployable product. Our repo-kind classifier reads .NET project files and the host and package markers of the other ecosystems it knows (a Go `package main`, a Cargo binary, a package.json `bin`, `start` script or application dev server such as Vite or Next, Python console scripts or a Django/WSGI entry point, a Spring Boot / WAR / Gradle application build, a Rack or Rails app, a Composer project, an OTP release or escript, a Dockerfile, a Procfile, a Platform.sh `.platform/routes.yaml`, and the corresponding published-package manifests, including an OTP `*.app.src`, a Drupal module's `*.info` and a Claude Code `.claude-plugin/plugin.json`), and found none here, so we could not tell what kind of repository this is and did not assess its ADR log. This is a gap in our analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D21 Naming Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D24 Comment Value — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `VirtualBuddy/Automation/Support/DeepLinkAuthDialog.swift`, `VirtualBuddy/Bootstrap/VirtualBuddyAppDelegate.swift`, `VirtualCore/Source/GuestSupport/GuestAdditionsDiskImage.swift`, `VirtualCore/Source/Import/UTM/UTMImporter.swift`, `VirtualCore/Source/Restore Images/VBAPIClient.swift`, … (+50 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which project references which. That is a language-neutral question, but the project-reference graph is collected from MSBuild .csproj/.fsproj/.vbproj, Gradle, Maven, Cargo, npm/pnpm/yarn, Go module (and dep/glide/godep), Python pyproject.toml/setup.cfg/setup.py, SwiftPM, sbt, Mill, RubyGems, Composer, Mix/rebar3, pub, Unity assembly-definition, Deno/JSR, Tuist, CMake, Bazel, Xcode and XcodeGen builds and uni-app uni_modules plugins, or — when none declares a module — from the imports between a JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Ruby, loose Rust, build-less C# or manifest-less Go tree's top-level directories, or as one module when all of a tree's source is one directory, and this repository offers none of them — so there was no graph to read, and re-running the same commit reads the same nothing. No module manifest of any ecosystem this engine recognises was found either, and the source's own imports could not stand in: they are read for JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and Ruby only, and only when those languages are the product — in any other language a tree is read only when its whole source is one directory, which this one's is not. The collector owed is an import reader for this repository's languages. That is a COLLECTOR gap in this analyzer — no change to the scan image closes it — and not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX4 Dependency direction — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the direction each project reference points. That is a language-neutral question, but the project-reference graph is collected from MSBuild .csproj/.fsproj/.vbproj, Gradle, Maven, Cargo, npm/pnpm/yarn, Go module (and dep/glide/godep), Python pyproject.toml/setup.cfg/setup.py, SwiftPM, sbt, Mill, RubyGems, Composer, Mix/rebar3, pub, Unity assembly-definition, Deno/JSR, Tuist, CMake, Bazel, Xcode and XcodeGen builds and uni-app uni_modules plugins, or — when none declares a module — from the imports between a JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Ruby, loose Rust, build-less C# or manifest-less Go tree's top-level directories, or as one module when all of a tree's source is one directory, and this repository offers none of them — so there was no graph to read, and re-running the same commit reads the same nothing. No module manifest of any ecosystem this engine recognises was found either, and the source's own imports could not stand in: they are read for JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and Ruby only, and only when those languages are the product — in any other language a tree is read only when its whole source is one directory, which this one's is not. The collector owed is an import reader for this repository's languages. That is a COLLECTOR gap in this analyzer — no change to the scan image closes it — and not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX8 Test isolation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which projects are test projects, and what they reference. That is a language-neutral question, but the project-reference graph is collected from MSBuild .csproj/.fsproj/.vbproj, Gradle, Maven, Cargo, npm/pnpm/yarn, Go module (and dep/glide/godep), Python pyproject.toml/setup.cfg/setup.py, SwiftPM, sbt, Mill, RubyGems, Composer, Mix/rebar3, pub, Unity assembly-definition, Deno/JSR, Tuist, CMake, Bazel, Xcode and XcodeGen builds and uni-app uni_modules plugins, or — when none declares a module — from the imports between a JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Ruby, loose Rust, build-less C# or manifest-less Go tree's top-level directories, or as one module when all of a tree's source is one directory, and this repository offers none of them — so there was no graph to read, and re-running the same commit reads the same nothing. No module manifest of any ecosystem this engine recognises was found either, and the source's own imports could not stand in: they are read for JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and Ruby only, and only when those languages are the product — in any other language a tree is read only when its whole source is one directory, which this one's is not. The collector owed is an import reader for this repository's languages. That is a COLLECTOR gap in this analyzer — no change to the scan image closes it — and not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Subject: a native UI project (VirtualBuddyGuestHelper/Base.lproj/Main.storyboard). The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, an npm dev script, a web service's own toolchain entry point (cargo, go, dotnet, Python, Spring Boot), or an Android app's own Gradle wrapper (run on an emulator); an Apple or Flutter app needs a host it lacks. None applied, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Swift, c, objectivec is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Swift, c, objectivec is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
M4 Documentation accuracy — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. M4 checks only the claim kinds adjudicated at or above 95 % precision: links and versions (PREREGISTRATION version 9). Paths, command arguments, installs, environment variables, settings, projects, packages, routes, cd targets, infrastructure products and removed modules are read but not checked, and none of them is reported or counted.
P10 Library API & versioning — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads NuGet packaging and C# public API, and npm, PyPI, crates.io, Maven/Gradle, Go module, RubyGems, Composer, SwiftPM, CocoaPods, pub.dev, Hex, sbt, Mill and scala-cli package manifests only, and no .NET project and no package manifest of those ecosystems was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
P8 Schema migrations — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads EF Core usage in C# and the schema tooling its file scan recognises only, and no .NET project was loaded, and this repository's language is not one the scan models, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust or Dart was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, TypeScript/JavaScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's C, Objective-C, Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found, and this repository's Objective-C, Swift (Foundation mutable collections) is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's C, Objectivec, Swift is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
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.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
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.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
DM4 Rich vs anemic domain model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

11 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform at 34. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being SavedSessionError.errorDescription at 20 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SavedSessionModels.swift (SavedSessionError.errorDescription at 20). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform (cyclomatic 34)VirtualCore/Source/Utilities/VBDiskResizer.swift:181

SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform (cyclomatic 22)VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SessionLifecycleCoordination.swift:359

VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.scheduleRecovery (cyclomatic 21)VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.swift:364

SharedFoldersManagementView.body (cyclomatic 20)VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift:100

SessionCloseCoordinator.performClose (cyclomatic 19)VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SessionLifecycleCoordination.swift:144

+ 6 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 11 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform (cyclomatic 34), SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform (cyclomatic 22), VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.scheduleRecovery (cyclomatic 21). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 11 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.3 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

24 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was SessionCloseCoordinator.performClose at 40.

SessionCloseCoordinator.performClose (cognitive 40)VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SessionLifecycleCoordination.swift:144

SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform (cognitive 33)VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SessionLifecycleCoordination.swift:359

GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform (cognitive 33)VirtualCore/Source/Utilities/VBDiskResizer.swift:181

VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.scheduleRecovery (cognitive 30)VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.swift:364

SharedFoldersManagementView.body (cognitive 27)VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift:100

+ 19 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 24 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with SessionCloseCoordinator.performClose (cognitive 40), SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform (cognitive 33), GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform (cognitive 33). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 24 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 7.1 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

12 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: View · ×6VirtualUI/Source/Building Blocks/ChromeBorderModifier.swift:3

FileTooLong: Virtualization/VMController.swift · ×3VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMController.swift

ClassTooLong: VMInstallationViewModel · ×2VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallationViewModel.swift:26

MethodTooLong: GPTLayoutAdjuster.performVirtualCore/Source/Utilities/VBDiskResizer.swift:181

What to do

Resolve the 6 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with ChromeBorderModifier.swift, VMController.swift, VMInstance.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with VMController.swift, ConfigurationModels.swift, VMInstallationViewModel.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with VMInstallationViewModel.swift, VMController.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.8 / 10Stronggated by 11 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

11 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×4DeepLinkSecurity/Source/Models/Extensions/DeepLinkClient+Crypto.swift:17

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2VirtualCore/Source/Restore Images/VBAPIClient.swift:136

Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2)VirtualInstallation/Source/XPC/VirtualInstallationClient.swift:123

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)VirtualCore/Source/Restore/Installation/VirtualInstallationRestoreBackend.swift:132

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)VirtualUI/Source/Session/SavedSession/SavedSessionPrompts.swift:112

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

What to do

Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with BlurHashEncode.swift (2), DeepLinkClient+Crypto.swift, GroupedList.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with VBAPIClient.swift, StatusItemManager.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with VirtualInstallationClient.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.4 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

4 of 81 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: URL (LCOM4 10) · ×4VirtualInstallation/Source/Helpers.swift:3

What to do

Resolve the 4 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with Helpers.swift, DeepLinkClientDescriptor+.swift, HostingWindowController.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cohesion (LCOM4) 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: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

147 test methods: 147 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality9.6 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

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

1 skipped (1 with a documented reason), 4 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 147 tests.

No assertions: testCorruptGPTHeaderIsIgnored · ×4VirtualCoreTests/VBDiskResizerTests.swift:137

Skipped (documented): policyDoesNotDisableRosettaVirtualCoreTests/ManagedSharedFoldersTests.swift:60

What to do

Resolve the 4 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with VBDiskResizerTests.swift (2), VMControllerSavedSessionTests.swift (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Test Quality 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: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~9.6~~ 8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 89% · ceiling Verified

3 outdated direct SwiftPM dependencies, 1 pinning defect(s). 8 of 9 direct dependencies had their releases listed (0 naming no readable repository, 1 pinned to a branch or a revision rather than a version). SwiftPM has no package registry: a dependency is a repository URL and its releases are that repository's semver tags, so currency is answered by listing tags rather than by querying an index. Only a newer tag on the SAME MAJOR is reported — a `from:` requirement admits everything below the next major and nothing above it, so a major crossing needs a Package.swift edit rather than an update, and naming the update as its remedy would be wrong. Whether any dependency is DEPRECATED or ABANDONED is not graded and cannot be: a repository publishes no such marker, and there is no registry that could carry one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question.

Floating branch dependency: vmbridge

Outdated: sparkle · ×3

What to do

Resolve the 1 Floating branch dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Dependency Hygiene in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D14 · License Compliance8.0 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 9 SwiftPM package(s) use a banned license. SwiftPM has no package registry, so each package's licence is the one its repository declares: 8 of them read from the licence file the repository carries at the revision Package.resolved pins, and 1 — unpinned, or whose licence file could not be read or named — from api.deps.dev, which reports the licence the repository declares today. Graded: every package a committed Package.resolved pins, direct and transitive, and every declared dependency none pins. 2 of them declare no licence that matches a known SPDX licence; that is missing data, not a violation, and none of them is charged.

Banned license: libfragmentzip

What to do

Resolve the 1 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate License Compliance 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: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.9 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift (3×20=60); VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/GuestAppConfigurationView.swift (3×17=51); VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Storage/ManagedDiskImageEditor.swift (3×17=51)

Hotspot: VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift · ×3VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift:100

What to do

Resolve the 3 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with SharedFoldersManagementView.swift, GuestAppConfigurationView.swift, ManagedDiskImageEditor.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

58 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is VirtualCore/Source/Models/Configuration/ConfigurationModels.swift. Counted over 162 of the 285 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Stronggated by 13 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

13 deducted task-comment markers across 32516 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 9.9. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×11VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallData.swift:94

HackComment · ×2VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/ProvisioningConfigurationView.swift:72

What to do

Resolve the 11 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with NSImage+HEIC.swift (5), VMInstallData.swift (4), WindowEnvironment.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ProvisioningConfigurationView.swift, SettingsScreen.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues. semgrep hit a parse error in 7 file(s) — `VirtualCore/Source/GuestSupport/GuestAdditionsDiskImage.swift`, `VirtualCore/Source/Restore Images/VBAPIClient.swift` (line 150, line 151, line 153, …), `VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMController.swift` (line 312, line 314), `VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMLibraryController.swift` (line 292), `VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallationViewModel.swift` (line 550, line 551, line 552, …), … (+2 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

No known-vulnerable dependencies in any ecosystem this repository declares.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 162 of the 285 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: ConfigurationModels+Validation.swift↔VMConfigurationView.swift 50%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: ConfigurationModels+Validation.swift ↔ VMConfigurationView.swiftVirtualCore/Source/Models/Configuration/ConfigurationModels+Validation.swift:1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with ConfigurationModels+Validation.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic domain model10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain entities own their behaviour — a data-only reference entity whose logic lives in a foreign service is anemic. Rich models enforce their own invariants.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a reference entity protects its own invariants — a class whose identity is a computed content hash but whose hashed fields are publicly mutable bypasses that invariant. Encapsulated state keeps identity-bearing fields immutable.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies — a domain entity fused to a persistence ORM on its own declaration (active-record), or reaching a web-framework transport type in its own method, couples the domain to infrastructure. The clean-architecture dependency rule.

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

What to do

Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — 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 Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 12 use(s) across 39,434 production line(s) (~0.3/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Swift: on hot paths, reserveCapacity before appending, use ContiguousArray for class-element arrays, work in place with withUnsafeBufferPointer/withUnsafeTemporaryAllocation, and make large values ~Copyable with borrowing/consuming parameters.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

`writeGuestImage` is async and calls .waitUntilExit() — a blocking call inside async code stalls the cooperative pool's thread — one per core — and every task scheduled on it for as long as it runs. — VirtualCore/Source/GuestSupport/GuestAdditionsDiskImage.swift:302

What to do

Swift: await instead of blocking — `try await Task.sleep(for:)` for Thread.sleep/sleep, a checked continuation instead of a DispatchSemaphore or DispatchGroup wait, the async Process and URLSession APIs; never park a thread waiting on a Task — the cooperative pool cannot guarantee it progress.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling7.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

`catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×7) — VirtualWormhole/Source/GuestSessions.swift:124, VirtualUI/Source/Settings/GeneralSettingsView.swift:154, VirtualUI/Source/Library/Components/LibraryItemView.swift:133, …
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. — VirtualUI/Source/Installer/Steps/Restore Image Selection/RestoreImageSelectionController.swift:73

What to do

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	82%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	83%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	54%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	36%	Weak — gated by P1, P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Domain Modelling	100%	Exemplary	Solid.
Performance	72%	Strong	Solid.

Not evidenced — 3 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

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

Not included — 83 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Swift imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No Swift request handler (a Vapor, Hummingbird, Kitura, Swifter or Perfect route handler, as a method or a registered closure) is declared, so no state is shared between request threads.
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository commits no project file of a kind this check models. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository commits no project file of a kind this check models. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository commits no project file of a kind this check models. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named property (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a SwiftData @Model, a Core Data, Realm, GRDB or Fluent type, a GRDB or SQLite.swift column, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (CoreData, SwiftData, GRDB, RealmSwift, SQLite, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named property (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a SwiftData @Model, a Core Data, Realm, GRDB or Fluent type, a GRDB or SQLite.swift column, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (CoreData, SwiftData, GRDB, RealmSwift, SQLite, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
D11 Test Reliability — Test source is present (.swift) and this repository's suite is reachable only from an Apple platform: it ships VirtualBuddy.xcodeproj and no SwiftPM manifest, so it is built by Xcode rather than by `swift test`. The analyzer runs on Linux, where no simulator exists, so the suite was not re-run. Not scored: nothing was exercised.
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D19 Documentation Quality — No runnable or published unit to look for an example in, and no multi-project root README to look for a map in; the other documentation kinds are withheld (see the gaps), so documentation quality is not applicable here.
D20 ADR Quality — Repository kind not determined
D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; Swift not measured.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — D24 reads C# and Visual Basic comments only — this repository's production source is .swift, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.swift), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 55 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D5 Coupling — D5 reads a .NET project-reference graph only — this repository's production source is .swift, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository's test suite is reachable only from an Apple platform — it ships VirtualBuddy.xcodeproj and no SwiftPM manifest, so it is built by Xcode rather than by `swift test`. The analyzer runs on Linux, where no simulator exists, so the suite was not run and no coverage was instrumented. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures.
DM1 Aggregate boundaries — not scored for Swift: the sidecar flattens array/collection types (a child COLLECTION = legitimate membership vs a single embedded aggregate is indistinguishable), and aggregate-vs-value-object classification cannot be told apart in source (every struct-holding-struct reads alike) — reported as guidance rather than measured
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no in-repo typed-id idiom — primitive-obsession recorded as advisory DM8, DM2 not gated
DM3 Integration-event coupling — not scored for Swift: a cross-SwiftPM-target domain leak cannot be told apart in source from a legitimate shared-kernel/contracts module, and most repositories ship a single module — reported as guidance rather than measured
DM7 Repository granularity — not scored for Swift: 'a repository per CHILD entity' needs the aggregate-root structure, which is not source-resolvable — reported as guidance rather than measured
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P10 Library API & versioning — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Swift source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `Benchmark("…")` in a file importing package-benchmark, or package-benchmark in Package.swift, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X13 Undrained process stream — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — Not applicable: this check looks for a pattern guard or `case` label that increments, decrements or assigns while the switch is deciding whether it matches, and in this repository's languages none can. In C a `case` label must be a constant expression, and a switch has no guards, so no label can change state. In Objective-C a `case` label must be a constant expression, and a switch has no guards, so no label can change state. Swift has no `++` or `--`, and an assignment yields `()`, which cannot be an operand of `&&`, `||` or `?:` nor the Bool a `case … where` clause needs. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X25 Inert configuration knob — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 2 finding(s)

D14 · License Compliance · Banned license · ×1

Banned license: libfragmentzip — `libfragmentzip` 1.0.0 (https://github.com/insidegui/libfragmentzip.git) is brought in by this repository's SwiftPM files, and the licence its repository declares is one this policy bans (`LGPL-3.0`). The expression is charged only when no alternative in it is allowed. It is pinned by an Xcode-managed Package.resolved, which records no target scope, so this pass cannot tell whether an app target or only a test target links it — check before acting. The licence is read from the licence file its repository carries at the pinned revision. Replace the package, or record an accepted exception.

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

Boundary-crossing change coupling: ConfigurationModels+Validation.swift ↔ VMConfigurationView.swift VirtualCore/Source/Models/Configuration/ConfigurationModels+Validation.swift:1 — `VirtualCore/Source/Models/Configuration/ConfigurationModels+Validation.swift` (context VirtualCore) and `VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/VMConfigurationView.swift` (context VirtualUI) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (9 of the 18 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `abcdcfff` Implement initial support for USB passthrough on macOS 27 (#752); `92b49898` Display provisioning feature support status in configuration, disable…; `2fec2bd3` WIP: Provisioning in configuration UI — run `git show` on any of them.

Serious — 93 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×11

TodoComment VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallData.swift:94 — // TODO: Implement — 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 VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallData.swift:96 — // TODO: Implement — 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 VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallData.swift:98 — // TODO: Implement — 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 VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallData.swift:100 — // TODO: Implement — 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 VirtualUI/Source/Components/HostingWindowController/WindowEnvironment.swift:212 — // TODO: HACK! — 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 VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/Screenshot/NSImage+HEIC.swift:15 — // TODO: Adopt BuddyImageKit — 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 VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/Screenshot/NSImage+HEIC.swift:31 — // TODO: Adopt BuddyImageKit — 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 VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/Screenshot/NSImage+HEIC.swift:40 — // TODO: Adopt BuddyImageKit — 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 VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/Screenshot/NSImage+HEIC.swift:52 — // TODO: Adopt BuddyImageKit — 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 VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/Screenshot/NSImage+HEIC.swift:67 — // TODO: Adopt BuddyImageKit — 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 VirtualBuddy/Bootstrap/VirtualBuddyApp.swift:92 — // TODO: Remove this after moving to AppKit lifecycle — 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.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×7

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) VirtualWormhole/Source/GuestSessions.swift:124 — `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) VirtualUI/Source/Settings/GeneralSettingsView.swift:154 — `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) VirtualUI/Source/Library/Components/LibraryItemView.swift:133 — `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) VirtualUI/Source/Installer/Steps/Restore Image Selection/Components/BlurHashFullBleedBackground.swift:280 — `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.swift:401 — `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) VirtualCore/Source/Utilities/VolumeUtils.swift:54 — `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) DeepLinkSecurity/Source/Storage/KeychainDeepLinkAuthStore.swift:53 — `catch` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×6

TooManyMethods: View VirtualUI/Source/Building Blocks/ChromeBorderModifier.swift:3 — TooManyMethods — 61 methods, declared across 25 files: HostingWindowController/WindowEnvironment.swift (10), LiquidGlassCompat/RimEffect.swift (7), LiquidGlassCompat/AirGlassEffect.swift (5), Components/BlurHashFullBleedBackground.swift (5), +21 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 31 over it, 2.03× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. 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: VMController VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMController.swift:132 — TooManyMethods — 38 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 8 over it, 1.27× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: VMInstance VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMInstance.swift:18 — TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: VMLibraryController VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMLibraryController.swift:13 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods, declared across 2 files: Virtualization/VMLibraryController.swift (31), Components/LibraryItemView.swift (1). The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. 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: VMInstallationViewModel VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallationViewModel.swift:26 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: VirtualBuddyVMView VirtualUI/Source/Session/Components/SwiftUIVMView.swift:266 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×4

No assertions: testCorruptGPTHeaderIsIgnored VirtualCoreTests/VBDiskResizerTests.swift:137 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testCorruptPartitionEntriesAreIgnored VirtualCoreTests/VBDiskResizerTests.swift:141 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: controllerForInterruptedSessionRequiresRecovery VirtualCoreTests/VMControllerSavedSessionTests.swift:87 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: pendingOperationsFinishImmediatelyWhenThereAreNone VirtualCoreTests/VMControllerSavedSessionTests.swift:197 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) DeepLinkSecurity/Source/Models/Extensions/DeepLinkClient+Crypto.swift:17 — DeepLinkSecurity/Source/Models/Extensions/DeepLinkClient+Crypto.swift:17-21 | DeepLinkSecurity/Source/Models/Extensions/DeepLinkClient+Crypto.swift:30-34 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Components/GroupedList.swift:22 — VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Components/GroupedList.swift:22-26 | VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Components/GroupedList.swift:142-146 — 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 `VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Components/GroupedList.swift:22` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Components/GroupedList.swift:147` calls `EmptyView` and `VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Components/GroupedList.swift:27` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) VirtualCore/Source/VirtualCatalog/Utilities/BlurHashEncode.swift:130 — VirtualCore/Source/VirtualCatalog/Utilities/BlurHashEncode.swift:130-134 | VirtualUI/Source/Components/BlurHash/BlurHashDecoding.swift:170-174 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) VirtualCore/Source/VirtualCatalog/Utilities/BlurHashEncode.swift:124 — VirtualCore/Source/VirtualCatalog/Utilities/BlurHashEncode.swift:124-128 | VirtualUI/Source/Components/BlurHash/BlurHashDecoding.swift:164-168 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×4

Low cohesion: URL (LCOM4 10) VirtualInstallation/Source/Helpers.swift:3 — URL's methods fall into 10 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 10 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: NSImage (LCOM4 6) DeepLinkSecurity/Source/Models/Extensions/DeepLinkClientDescriptor+.swift:79 — NSImage's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: HostingWindowController (LCOM4 5) VirtualUI/Source/Components/HostingWindowController/HostingWindowController.swift:7 — HostingWindowController's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: VirtualMachineSessionUI (LCOM4 4) VirtualUI/Source/Session/VirtualMachineSessionUI.swift:7 — VirtualMachineSessionUI's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×3

Hotspot: VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift:100 — VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 20 in SharedFoldersManagementView.body at line 100. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-21..2026-10-19, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-21 15:24:22 -03:00' --until='2026-10-19 15:24:22 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/GuestAppConfigurationView.swift VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/GuestAppConfigurationView.swift:52 — VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/GuestAppConfigurationView.swift changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in GuestAppConfigurationView.body at line 52. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-21..2026-10-19, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-21 15:24:22 -03:00' --until='2026-10-19 15:24:22 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/GuestAppConfigurationView.swift`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Storage/ManagedDiskImageEditor.swift VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Storage/ManagedDiskImageEditor.swift:45 — VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Storage/ManagedDiskImageEditor.swift changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in ManagedDiskImageEditor.body at line 45. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 2 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-21..2026-10-19, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-21 15:24:22 -03:00' --until='2026-10-19 15:24:22 -03:00' --full-history --no-merges -- VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Storage/ManagedDiskImageEditor.swift`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×3

FileTooLong: Virtualization/VMController.swift VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMController.swift — FileTooLong — 672 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 73% of them inside a single declaration: VMController (133-1030). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 172 over it, 1.34× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: Configuration/ConfigurationModels.swift VirtualCore/Source/Models/Configuration/ConfigurationModels.swift — FileTooLong — 649 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 149 over it, 1.30× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Installer/VMInstallationViewModel.swift VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallationViewModel.swift — FileTooLong — 525 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 97% of them inside a single declaration: VMInstallationViewModel (27-815). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 25 over it, 1.05× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×2

HackComment VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/ProvisioningConfigurationView.swift:72 — // HACK: Force yellow warning when host supports provisioning, red only when host doesn't support provisioning — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment VirtualUI/Source/Settings/SettingsScreen.swift:71 — // HACK! Don't want sidebar toggle, but want the toolbar visible — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×2

ClassTooLong: VMInstallationViewModel VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallationViewModel.swift:26 — ClassTooLong — 509 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 32 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 109 over it, 1.27× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: VMController VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMController.swift:132 — ClassTooLong — 489 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 38 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 89 over it, 1.22× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) VirtualCore/Source/Restore Images/VBAPIClient.swift:136 — VirtualCore/Source/Restore Images/VBAPIClient.swift:136-142 | VirtualCore/Source/Restore Images/VBAPIClient.swift:192-198 — 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) VirtualUI/Source/Components/SwiftUI Status Item/StatusItemManager.swift:465 — VirtualUI/Source/Components/SwiftUI Status Item/StatusItemManager.swift:465-471 | VirtualUI/Source/Components/SwiftUI Status Item/StatusItemManager.swift:474-480 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform (cyclomatic 34) · ×1

GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform (cyclomatic 34) VirtualCore/Source/Utilities/VBDiskResizer.swift:181 — GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform (cyclomatic 22) VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SessionLifecycleCoordination.swift:359 — SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.scheduleRecovery (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.scheduleRecovery (cyclomatic 21) VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.swift:364 — VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.scheduleRecovery has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SharedFoldersManagementView.body (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

SharedFoldersManagementView.body (cyclomatic 20) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift:100 — SharedFoldersManagementView.body has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SessionCloseCoordinator.performClose (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

SessionCloseCoordinator.performClose (cyclomatic 19) VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SessionLifecycleCoordination.swift:144 — SessionCloseCoordinator.performClose has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SavedSessionRuntimeDescription.firstDifference (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

SavedSessionRuntimeDescription.firstDifference (cyclomatic 17) VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SavedSessionEligibility.swift:237 — SavedSessionRuntimeDescription.firstDifference has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GuestAppConfigurationView.body (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

GuestAppConfigurationView.body (cyclomatic 17) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/GuestAppConfigurationView.swift:52 — GuestAppConfigurationView.body has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ProvisioningConfigurationView.body (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

ProvisioningConfigurationView.body (cyclomatic 17) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/ProvisioningConfigurationView.swift:43 — ProvisioningConfigurationView.body has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ProvisioningForm.validatedField (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

ProvisioningForm.validatedField (cyclomatic 17) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/ProvisioningConfigurationView.swift:194 — ProvisioningForm.validatedField has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ManagedDiskImageEditor.body (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

ManagedDiskImageEditor.body (cyclomatic 17) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Storage/ManagedDiskImageEditor.swift:45 — ManagedDiskImageEditor.body has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · VMLibraryController.loadMachines (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

VMLibraryController.loadMachines (cyclomatic 16) VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMLibraryController.swift:164 — VMLibraryController.loadMachines 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.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Floating branch dependency · ×1

Floating branch dependency: vmbridge — Dependency `vmbridge` is resolved in VirtualBuddy.xcodeproj/project.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `main` rather than a released version — the project pins no immutable point, so resolving the packages again moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time. Change the dependency rule in Xcode to a version requirement, or to an exact commit.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SessionCloseCoordinator.performClose (cognitive 40) · ×1

SessionCloseCoordinator.performClose (cognitive 40) VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SessionLifecycleCoordination.swift:144 — SessionCloseCoordinator.performClose has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (24 pts), error handling 4 (12 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 25). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform (cognitive 33) · ×1

SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform (cognitive 33) VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SessionLifecycleCoordination.swift:359 — SessionTerminationCoordinator.perform has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (25 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 31 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform (cognitive 33) · ×1

GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform (cognitive 33) VirtualCore/Source/Utilities/VBDiskResizer.swift:181 — GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 23, if/else 10. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.scheduleRecovery (cognitive 30) · ×1

VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.scheduleRecovery (cognitive 30) VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.swift:364 — VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.scheduleRecovery has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), boolean chains 8, error handling 3 (6 pts), loops 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SharedFoldersManagementView.body (cognitive 27) · ×1

SharedFoldersManagementView.body (cognitive 27) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift:100 — SharedFoldersManagementView.body has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (20 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VirtualMachineSessionUI.startOrResume (cognitive 26) · ×1

VirtualMachineSessionUI.startOrResume (cognitive 26) VirtualUI/Source/Session/SavedSession/VirtualMachineSessionUI+Lifecycle.swift:92 — VirtualMachineSessionUI.startOrResume has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: error handling 6 (12 pts), if/else 3 (10 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VMLibraryController.loadMachines (cognitive 24) · ×1

VMLibraryController.loadMachines (cognitive 24) VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMLibraryController.swift:164 — VMLibraryController.loadMachines has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (15 pts), error handling 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SavedSessionStorage.stageCapture (cognitive 23) · ×1

SavedSessionStorage.stageCapture (cognitive 23) VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SavedSessionStorage.swift:119 — SavedSessionStorage.stageCapture has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VBDiskResizer.resizeDiskImage (cognitive 21) · ×1

VBDiskResizer.resizeDiskImage (cognitive 21) VirtualCore/Source/Utilities/VBDiskResizer.swift:51 — VBDiskResizer.resizeDiskImage has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (20 pts), match/switch 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VMInstallationViewModel._runMacInstallation (cognitive 19) · ×1

VMInstallationViewModel._runMacInstallation (cognitive 19) VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallationViewModel.swift:603 — VMInstallationViewModel._runMacInstallation has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (15 pts), error handling 4 (nesting depth added 3). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VirtualMachineGuestActions.body (cognitive 19) · ×1

VirtualMachineGuestActions.body (cognitive 19) VirtualUI/Source/Session/VirtualMachineSessionUI.swift:268 — VirtualMachineGuestActions.body has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 4, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProvisioningForm.validatedField (cognitive 19) · ×1

ProvisioningForm.validatedField (cognitive 19) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/ProvisioningConfigurationView.swift:194 — ProvisioningForm.validatedField has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (13 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ManagedDiskImageEditor.body (cognitive 19) · ×1

ManagedDiskImageEditor.body (cognitive 19) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Storage/ManagedDiskImageEditor.swift:45 — ManagedDiskImageEditor.body has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (10 pts), boolean chains 6, ternaries 3 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DeepLinkSentinel.authenticate (cognitive 18) · ×1

DeepLinkSentinel.authenticate (cognitive 18) DeepLinkSecurity/Source/DeepLinkSentinel.swift:95 — DeepLinkSentinel.authenticate has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (10 pts), error handling 3 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · NSImage.init (cognitive 18) · ×1

NSImage.init (cognitive 18) VirtualUI/Source/Components/BlurHash/BlurHashDecoding.swift:74 — NSImage.init has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (10 pts), if/else 8 (nesting depth added 6). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ExternalDiskImageCopier.copy (cognitive 18) · ×1

ExternalDiskImageCopier.copy (cognitive 18) VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/ExternalDiskImageCopier.swift:67 — ExternalDiskImageCopier.copy has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (9 pts), if/else 3 (8 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GuestAppConfigurationView.body (cognitive 18) · ×1

GuestAppConfigurationView.body (cognitive 18) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/GuestAppConfigurationView.swift:52 — GuestAppConfigurationView.body has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (10 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 1 (2 pts), ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VMLibraryController.migrateBackgroundHashesForLegacyThumbnails (cognitive 17) · ×1

VMLibraryController.migrateBackgroundHashesForLegacyThumbnails (cognitive 17) VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMLibraryController.swift:335 — VMLibraryController.migrateBackgroundHashesForLegacyThumbnails has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VMUSBDeviceController.start (cognitive 17) · ×1

VMUSBDeviceController.start (cognitive 17) VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMUSBDeviceController.swift:69 — VMUSBDeviceController.start has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (10 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), error handling 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProvisioningConfigurationView.body (cognitive 17) · ×1

ProvisioningConfigurationView.body (cognitive 17) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/ProvisioningConfigurationView.swift:43 — ProvisioningConfigurationView.body has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 6 (7 pts), boolean chains 5, if/else 5 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GuestAdditionsDiskImage.computeImageSizeInMB (cognitive 16) · ×1

GuestAdditionsDiskImage.computeImageSizeInMB (cognitive 16) VirtualCore/Source/GuestSupport/GuestAdditionsDiskImage.swift:439 — GuestAdditionsDiskImage.computeImageSizeInMB has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SavedSessionRuntimeDescription.firstDifference (cognitive 16) · ×1

SavedSessionRuntimeDescription.firstDifference (cognitive 16) VirtualCore/Source/SavedSession/SavedSessionEligibility.swift:237 — SavedSessionRuntimeDescription.firstDifference has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, boolean chains 3. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VirtualMachineSessionView.body (cognitive 16) · ×1

VirtualMachineSessionView.body (cognitive 16) VirtualUI/Source/Session/VirtualMachineSessionView.swift:34 — VirtualMachineSessionView.body has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), boolean chains 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GuestSessionEngine.receiveOffer (cognitive 16) · ×1

GuestSessionEngine.receiveOffer (cognitive 16) VirtualWormhole/Source/GuestSessions.swift:293 — GuestSessionEngine.receiveOffer has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 5, error handling 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1

MethodTooLong: GPTLayoutAdjuster.perform VirtualCore/Source/Utilities/VBDiskResizer.swift:181 — MethodTooLong — perform runs 123 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.23× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) VirtualInstallation/Source/XPC/VirtualInstallationClient.swift:123 — VirtualInstallation/Source/XPC/VirtualInstallationClient.swift:123-137 | VirtualInstallation/Source/XPC/VirtualInstallationClient.swift:149-161 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `VirtualInstallation/Source/XPC/VirtualInstallationClient.swift:123` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) VirtualCore/Source/Restore/Installation/VirtualInstallationRestoreBackend.swift:132 — VirtualCore/Source/Restore/Installation/VirtualInstallationRestoreBackend.swift:132-145 | VirtualCore/Source/Restore/Installation/VirtualizationRestoreBackend.swift:83-96 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) VirtualUI/Source/Session/SavedSession/SavedSessionPrompts.swift:112 — VirtualUI/Source/Session/SavedSession/SavedSessionPrompts.swift:112-120 | VirtualUI/Source/Session/SavedSession/SavedSessionPrompts.swift:225-233 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/USBDevicesConfigurationView.swift:360 — VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/USBDevicesConfigurationView.swift:360-367 | VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/USBDevicesConfigurationView.swift:369-376 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/USBDevicesConfigurationView.swift:358` calls `Divider` and `VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/USBDevicesConfigurationView.swift:367` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift:368 — VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift:368-373 | VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/Sharing/SharedFoldersManagementView.swift:376-381 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

P1 · CI/CD gates · No CI pipeline · ×1

No CI pipeline — No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

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

Sync-over-async blocking VirtualCore/Source/GuestSupport/GuestAdditionsDiskImage.swift:302 — `writeGuestImage` is async and calls .waitUntilExit() — a blocking call inside async code stalls the cooperative pool's thread — one per core — and every task scheduled on it for as long as it runs.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) · ×1

Swallowed exception (empty catch) VirtualUI/Source/Installer/Steps/Restore Image Selection/RestoreImageSelectionController.swift:73 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.

Minor — 7 finding(s)

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 58 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: VirtualCore/Source/Models/Configuration/ConfigurationModels.swift, VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMInstance.swift, VirtualUI/Source/Installer/VMInstallationViewModel.swift, VirtualCore/Source/VirtualCatalog/ResolvedCatalog.swift, VirtualUI/Source/VM Configuration/Sections/USBDevicesConfigurationView.swift, VirtualCore/Source/Virtualization/VMNetworkAttachmentHelper.swift, VirtualCore/Source/GuestSupport/GuestAdditionsDiskImage.swift, VirtualUI/Source/Session/VirtualMachineSessionUI.swift (+50 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (32516 LoC, 638 module-visible types across 76 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1

No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

M3 · Folder & project structure · No src/ separation · ×1

No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

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

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

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

Minor — 4 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×3

Outdated: sparkle — `sparkle` is resolved at 2.9.4, but 2.10.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/sparkle-project/Sparkle within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update sparkle` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swift-argument-parser — `swift-argument-parser` is resolved at 1.5.1, but 1.8.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-argument-parser within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swift-argument-parser` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
Outdated: swiftui-introspect — `swiftui-introspect` is resolved at 27.0.0-beta.1, but 27.1.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/siteline/swiftui-introspect within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update swiftui-introspect` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.

D10 · Test Quality · Skipped (documented) · ×1

Skipped (documented): policyDoesNotDisableRosetta VirtualCoreTests/ManagedSharedFoldersTests.swift:60 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: conditionally enabled — runs only when its .enabled(if:) condition holds

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-c73dc2d4201942cdb5f7b22a7f4a10ed/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-c73dc2d4201942cdb5f7b22a7f4a10ed/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off --exclude .arrow --exclude .avro --exclude .csv --exclude .dat --exclude .db --exclude .feather --exclude .geojson --exclude .h5 --exclude .hdf5 --exclude .jsonl --exclude .log --exclude .ndjson --exclude .npy --exclude .npz --exclude .orc --exclude .parquet --exclude .pickle --exclude .pkl --exclude .psv --exclude .sqlite --exclude .sqlite3 --exclude .tfrecord --exclude .tsv --exclude .txt .	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 55 file(s) — `VirtualBuddy/Automation/Support/DeepLinkAuthDialog.swift`, `VirtualBuddy/Bootstrap/VirtualBuddyAppDelegate.swift`, `VirtualCore/Source/GuestSupport/GuestAdditionsDiskImage.swift`, `VirtualCore/Source/Import/UTM/UTMImporter.swift`, `VirtualCore/Source/Restore Images/VBAPIClient.swift`, … (+50 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a17793-f292-7ba2-a244-9184f88852f9 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 82% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 83% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 54% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 36% · Weak · gated by P1, P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 100% · Exemplary ·

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

At a glance — Performance · 72% · Strong ·

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts