Public report of intitni/CopilotForXcode, published 26 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 26 October 2026, 09:48 UTC · Survey ID cd_356b1663f09d4d56a3ed536e9aa2154d

intitni/CopilotForXcode

Measured 26 October 2026, 09:46 UTC, at code version b59c57a

No regression since the last survey Supply-chain provenance & signing: not measured

A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.

Supply-chain provenance & signing is not measured: Supply-chain provenance is not scored (this pipeline releases no artifact), but its build steps or GitHub Actions workflows have integrity defects, or nothing watches its dependency set for published advisories.

CAI score 45out of 100 Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Up 1 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Security and Compliance 98 Exemplary Architecture 90 Adequate Performance 78 Strong Code Health 78 Strong Maturity 58 Adequate Event Sourcing 49 Adequate Production Readiness 27 Weak

A medium codebase: 56,856 lines of product code in 75 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.4 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 27

Findings by how serious they are

9 critical 368 serious 62 minor

22 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
26 October 2026, 09:46 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

58of 58 dimensions measured by tools.
346of 439 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 93 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
58dimensions across 7 lenses, read from 56,856 lines of product code in 75 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

intitni/CopilotForXcode falls short of our standard for a preview release because we found no logging, tracing or health checks in the code and no automated security scanning of the code, its secrets or its dependencies. It scores 45 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, and two of its nine critical findings are security problems.

Production Readiness, at 27, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step is pinning the dependencies taken from a moving source, worth about 11 points. Adding a diagnostic log would lift Production Readiness itself, worth about 6 points. Raising Production Readiness to 62 would lift the score to about 58.

One password or key is open to anyone who can read the repository. One pipeline tool is referenced by a changeable name, so the build pipeline can be tampered with. Replacing the exposed password or key and pinning the tool to an exact version would close both risks. The five tests that check nothing need to check the result they produce.

The product code is 56,856 lines, about €59,000 to rebuild.

Code Health 78 Strong Architecture 90 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 58 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 27 Weak, capped by CI/CD gates, Observability and Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 98 ★ Exemplary Event Sourcing 49 Adequate, capped by Immutable events Performance 78 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 27 · counts for 46%Event Sourcing 49 · counts for 25%Maturity 58 · counts for 14%Code Health 78 · counts for 8%Performance 78 · counts for 4%Architecture 90 · counts for 2%Security and Compliance 98 · counts for 1%

If Production Readiness rose from 27 to 62, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 45 to about 58.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 85%Tests 15%
New since the last survey: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding wasn't in the previous survey, on 12 October 2026.

  • Change Coupling · Change coupling clique: SuggestionCommandHandler.swift, SourceEditorExtension.swift, XPCServiceProtocol.swift Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/SuggestionCommandHandler.swift

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

Fixed since the last survey: 6 findings

These 6 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 12 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

  • Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair: OverlayWindow/Sources/OverlayWindow/IDEWorkspaceWindowOverlayWindowController.swift OverlayWindow/Sources/OverlayWindow/IDEWorkspaceWindowOverlayWindowController.swift
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Copilot for Xcode.xcodeproj/project.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved
  • Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Copilot for Xcode.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved
  • Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling: SourceEditorExtension.swift ↔ XPCServiceProtocol.swift EditorExtension/SourceEditorExtension.swift
  • Change Coupling · Change coupling: WindowBaseCommandHandler.swift ↔ CustomCommand.swift Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/WindowBaseCommandHandler.swift
  • Change Coupling · Change-coupling hub: SuggestionCommandHandler.swift → SourceEditorExtension.swift, XPCExtensionService.swift, XPCServiceProtocol.swift Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/SuggestionCommandHandler.swift
Rebuild cost: about €59,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€20,000 to €99,000, for 329 to 1,044 hours of work, about 0.4 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemStandard, 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 45. 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.
SizeMedium: 56,856 lines of product code
What it is notNot 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.

1
Resolve the 18 Floating branch dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
Raises the score by about 11 points · Medium effort · Dependency Hygiene
2
Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SwiftFocusedCodeFinderTests.swift.
Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · Test Quality
3
Resolve the 2 Assertions commented out finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ChatPluginsTests.swift, WindowTests.swift.
Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · Test Quality

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 €59,000 to build again, about 0.4 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 27 (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 18 Floating branch dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 11 points for medium effort, because it clears the 18 Dependency Hygiene 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 — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways, which only happens where the projects form a dependency cycle. A graph without cycles has none.

arch AXExtension AXExtension Logger Logger AXExtension->Logger AXNotificationStream AXNotificationStream AXNotificationStream->Logger Preferences Preferences AXNotificationStream->Preferences ActiveApplicationMonitor ActiveApplicationMonitor ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector OpenAIService OpenAIService ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector->OpenAIService ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector->Preferences XcodeInspector XcodeInspector ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector->XcodeInspector AppActivator AppActivator AppActivator->XcodeInspector BuiltinExtension BuiltinExtension ChatBasic ChatBasic BuiltinExtension->ChatBasic SuggestionBasic SuggestionBasic BuiltinExtension->SuggestionBasic SuggestionProvider SuggestionProvider BuiltinExtension->SuggestionProvider Workspace Workspace BuiltinExtension->Workspace ChatBasic->Preferences CodeiumService CodeiumService CodeiumService->BuiltinExtension CodeiumService->Preferences CodeiumService->SuggestionBasic CodeiumService->XcodeInspector Configs Configs GitHubCopilotService GitHubCopilotService GitHubCopilotService->BuiltinExtension GitHubCopilotService->ChatBasic GitHubCopilotService->Logger GitHubCopilotService->Preferences GitHubCopilotService->SuggestionBasic GitHubCopilotService->SuggestionProvider KeyBindingManager KeyBindingManager KeyBindingManager->AXExtension KeyBindingManager->AXNotificationStream KeyBindingManager->ActiveApplicationMonitor KeyBindingManager->AppActivator KeyBindingManager->Configs KeyBindingManager->Logger KeyBindingManager->Preferences KeyBindingManager->Workspace KeyBindingManager->XcodeInspector OpenAIService->BuiltinExtension OpenAIService->ChatBasic OpenAIService->GitHubCopilotService OpenAIService->Logger OpenAIService->Preferences OverlayWindow OverlayWindow OverlayWindow->AXExtension OverlayWindow->AXNotificationStream OverlayWindow->ActiveApplicationMonitor OverlayWindow->AppActivator OverlayWindow->Configs OverlayWindow->Logger OverlayWindow->Preferences OverlayWindow->XcodeInspector Preferences->Configs SuggestionProvider->Logger SuggestionProvider->Preferences SuggestionProvider->SuggestionBasic SuggestionWidget SuggestionWidget SuggestionWidget->AXExtension SuggestionWidget->AXNotificationStream SuggestionWidget->ActiveApplicationMonitor SuggestionWidget->AppActivator SuggestionWidget->Logger SuggestionWidget->XcodeInspector Workspace->Logger Workspace->Preferences Workspace->SuggestionBasic Workspace->XcodeInspector XcodeInspector->AXExtension XcodeInspector->AXNotificationStream XcodeInspector->Logger XcodeInspector->Preferences XcodeInspector->SuggestionBasic __more__ +55 more projects

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.

69 modules, with 415 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 46 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 29 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 Tool~ActiveApplicationMonitor2 Tool~RAGChatAgent3 Tool~SuggestionBasic4 Tool~Toast5 Tool~CustomCommandTemplateProcessor6 Tool~SuggestionInjector7 Tool~SuggestionProvider8 Tool~FocusedCodeFinder9 Tool~WorkspaceSuggestionService10 repository11 Tool~ChatTab12 Tool~XcodeInspector13 Tool~CommandHandler14 Tool~OpenAIService15 Tool~XPCShared16 Tool~Workspace17 Core~KeyBindingManager18 Core~Service19 Tool~CodeiumService20 Tool~GitHubCopilotService21 Tool~LangChain22 Tool~AIModel23 Tool~AXExtension24 OverlayWindow~OverlayWindow25 Core~SuggestionWidget26 Core~XcodeThemeController27 Tool~FileSystem28 Tool~Preferences29 Core~SuggestionService30 Tool~BuiltinExtension31 Tool~ChatContextCollector32 Core~ChatService33 Core~ChatGPTChatTab34 Tool~CodeDiff35 Tool~ChatBasic36 Core~ChatContextCollectors37 Tool~ModificationBasic38 Tool~SharedUIComponents39 Core~HostApp40 Tool~ChatContextCollectors
1 Tool~ActiveApplicationMonitor21121
2 Tool~RAGChatAgent5513112
3 Tool~SuggestionBasic14610
4 Tool~Toast22
5 Tool~CustomCommandTemplateProcessor1111
6 Tool~SuggestionInjector3113
7 Tool~SuggestionProvider721144
8 Tool~FocusedCodeFinder161744114
9 Tool~WorkspaceSuggestionService21321
10 repository11146121
11 Tool~ChatTab111548
12 Tool~XcodeInspector11171811106
13 Tool~CommandHandler3333363
14 Tool~OpenAIService8811233523251929109
15 Tool~XPCShared431117718
16 Tool~Workspace41311242129
17 Core~KeyBindingManager1112121
18 Core~Service1242227111214421128
19 Tool~CodeiumService61112241317512712444
20 Tool~GitHubCopilotService911317631813133
21 Tool~LangChain3112631151415621
22 Tool~AIModel1349
23 Tool~AXExtension211111
24 OverlayWindow~OverlayWindow53114141
25 Core~SuggestionWidget438410342263611
26 Core~XcodeThemeController11175
27 Tool~FileSystem11141823
28 Tool~Preferences101119
29 Core~SuggestionService1311
30 Tool~BuiltinExtension11223116117
31 Tool~ChatContextCollector11116
32 Core~ChatService112319
33 Core~ChatGPTChatTab242163211317
34 Tool~CodeDiff51128
35 Tool~ChatBasic12111132412
36 Core~ChatContextCollectors221414
37 Tool~ModificationBasic411447
38 Tool~SharedUIComponents1383923110
39 Core~HostApp1311121111421525137107203
40 Tool~ChatContextCollectors231111114111
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 Tool~ActiveApplicationMonitor2 Tool~RAGChatAgent3 Tool~SuggestionBasic4 Tool~Toast5 Tool~CustomCommandTemplateProcessor6 Tool~SuggestionInjector7 Tool~SuggestionProvider8 Tool~FocusedCodeFinder9 Tool~WorkspaceSuggestionService10 repository11 Tool~ChatTab12 Tool~XcodeInspector13 Tool~CommandHandler14 Tool~OpenAIService15 Tool~XPCShared16 Tool~Workspace17 Core~KeyBindingManager18 Core~Service19 Tool~CodeiumService20 Tool~GitHubCopilotService21 Tool~LangChain22 Tool~AIModel23 Tool~AXExtension24 OverlayWindow~OverlayWindow25 Core~SuggestionWidget26 Core~XcodeThemeController27 Tool~FileSystem28 Tool~Preferences29 Core~SuggestionService30 Tool~BuiltinExtension31 Tool~ChatContextCollector32 Core~ChatService33 Core~ChatGPTChatTab34 Tool~CodeDiff35 Tool~ChatBasic36 Core~ChatContextCollectors37 Tool~ModificationBasic38 Tool~SharedUIComponents39 Core~HostApp40 Tool~ChatContextCollectorsTool~ActiveApplicationMonitor1Tool~RAGChatAgent2Tool~SuggestionBasic3Tool~Toast4Tool~CustomCommandTemplateProcessor5Tool~SuggestionInjector6Tool~SuggestionProvider7Tool~FocusedCodeFinder8Tool~WorkspaceSuggestionService9repository10Tool~ChatTab11Tool~XcodeInspector12Tool~CommandHandler13Tool~OpenAIService14Tool~XPCShared15Tool~Workspace16Core~KeyBindingManager17Core~Service18Tool~CodeiumService19Tool~GitHubCopilotService20Tool~LangChain21Tool~AIModel22Tool~AXExtension23OverlayWindow~OverlayWindow24Core~SuggestionWidget25Core~XcodeThemeController26Tool~FileSystem27Tool~Preferences28Core~SuggestionService29Tool~BuiltinExtension30Tool~ChatContextCollector31Core~ChatService32Core~ChatGPTChatTab33Tool~CodeDiff34Tool~ChatBasic35Core~ChatContextCollectors36Tool~ModificationBasic37Tool~SharedUIComponents38Core~HostApp39Tool~ChatContextCollectors40211215513112146102211113113721144161744114213211114612111154811171811106333336388112335232519291094311177184131124212911121211242227111214421128611122413175127124449113176318131333112631151415621134921111153114141438410342263611111751114182310111913111122311611711116112319242163211317511281211113241222141441144713839231101311121111421525137107203231111114111+29 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 78% · Strong ·

The Good
D3 · Swift God Classes 8.4 D4 · Swift Code Duplication 8.9 D17 · Swift Explicit Debt 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0
The Bad
D1 · Swift Cyclomatic Complexity 6.7 D2 · Swift Cognitive Complexity 5.3 X3 · Repo Exception handling 5.9

At a glance — Architecture · 90% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good
D5 · Swift Coupling 7.5 D6 · Swift Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.2 D35 · Swift Change Coupling 9.4 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.9 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 9.9
The Ugly
D26 · Swift Project Cohesion 2.0

At a glance — Maturity · 58% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good
D15 · Swift Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D34 · Swift Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.7 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Ugly
D20 · Swift ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 27% · Weak · gated by P1, P2, P3 ·

The Good
D9 · Swift Test Distribution 9.4 D10 · Swift Test Quality 9.3 D13 · Swift REDACTED Scanning 10.0 D14 · Swift License Compliance 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0
The Bad
D12 · Swift Dependency Hygiene 4.8 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 1.5 P2 · Repo Observability 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 98% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D28 · Swift Secrets (history) 9.0 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 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 49% · Adequate · gated by ES2 ·

The Good
ES1 · Repo Fold determinism 10.0
The Ugly
ES2 · Repo Immutable events 1.0

At a glance — Performance · 78% · Strong ·

The Good
PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0
The Bad
PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.1

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures2High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection1High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by resolving the 18 floating branch dependencies to stabilize the project's external requirements. Next, implement comprehensive logging via os.Logger across all subsystems, prioritizing error paths that currently lack diagnostic trails to ensure failures are reproducible. Simultaneously, address the critical gaps in test quality by fixing empty tests and uncommenting disabled assertions in the specified test files. Finally, improve the immutability of event handling to reduce state mutation risks and enhance system reliability.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 18 Floating branch dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+11.0 ptsMediumDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SwiftFocusedCodeFinderTests.swift.+4.6 ptsLowTest Quality
Resolve the 2 Assertions commented out finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ChatPluginsTests.swift, WindowTests.swift.+4.6 ptsLowTest Quality
Resolve the 2 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ChatPluginsTests.swift, WindowTests.swift.+4.6 ptsLowTest Quality
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+3.4 ptsLowADR Quality
Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: log through `os.Logger` (one per subsystem), which the unified log keeps and a sysdiagnose carries to you. Start with the error paths that emit nothing — a discarded error is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce.+5.8 ptsMediumObservability
Improve Immutable events (currently 1.0/10).+5.8 ptsMediumImmutable events
Resolve the 4 Dependency not covered by the committed resolution finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+2.7 ptsLowDependency Hygiene

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 131 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 0% slop · 5% mixed · 95% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift5.6MixedCyclomatic Complexity: GitHubCopilotBaseService.init (cyclomatic 17)
Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/Widget.swift5.9MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Widget.body (cyclomatic 38)
Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/ChatGPTService.swift5.9MixedCyclomatic Complexity: ChatGPTService.send (cyclomatic 22)
Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Tool/Tests/FocusedCodeFinderTests/SwiftFocusedCodeFinderTests.swift6.2MixedTest Quality: No assertions (empty test): test_selecting_a_line_in_freestanding_macro_the_scope_should_be_the_macro
Core/Sources/LaunchAgentManager/LaunchAgentManager.swift6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift7.0Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: RequestBody.init (cyclomatic 54)
Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift7.0Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: PseudoCommandHandler.openChat (cyclomatic 18)
Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Memory/ChatGPTMemory.swift7.0Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: ChatGPTMemory.streamMessage (cognitive 49)
Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift7.0Near-cleanCode Duplication: Near-duplicate member pair (58 shared lines)
Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/ObjectiveC/ObjectiveCCodeFinder.swift7.0Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (17–19 lines × 2)
Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Styles.swift7.0Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)
Tool/Sources/ChatBasic/ChatGPTFunction.swift7.0Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (5 lines × 2)
ChatPlugins/Tests/ChatPluginsTests/ChatPluginsTests.swift7.0Near-cleanTest Quality: Assertions commented out: example
OverlayWindow/Tests/OverlayWindowTests/WindowTests.swift7.0Near-cleanTest Quality: Assertions commented out: example
Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift7.0Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: WidgetWindowsController.generateWidgetLocation (cyclomatic 23)
Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift7.0Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: ChatModelEdit.body (cyclomatic 37)
Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift7.0Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: SimpleModificationAgent.modifyCode (cyclomatic 20)
Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift7.0Near-cleanGod Classes: FileTooLong: SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift
Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift7.0Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (27 lines × 2)

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 — 9

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 — 368

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 — 62

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

Could not be resolved — 22

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. 58 of 58 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 — 58 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D20D26D28D29D30D34D35D43AX10AX3AX4AX8AX9ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P6PF2PF3X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X21X22X23X24X25X26X28X29X3X30

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
  1. 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, 346 of 439 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 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 01a1779a-42d2-7ff8-be93-16da952b22bf.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: the Swift half could not be measured — the Swift suite in ChatPlugins produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo. In the meantime, commit (or publish into the working tree) the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and the real number is read on the next scan. You can widen what we reach: optional: commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces, and the real number is read on the next scan.
  • D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.swift) and this repository declares a SwiftPM test suite (4 packages), but it was not re-run: the analyzer environment could not run it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D14 License Compliance — 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. 4 of this repository's SwiftPM dependencies could not be fetched at a pinned revision and are repositories api.deps.dev has not indexed, so their licences were not read and the verdict does not cover them: cgeventoverride, copilotforxcodekit, generative-ai-swift, keyboardshortcuts.
  • D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (13 contributor(s) across 3499 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 99% of the history; the other 12 hold 0.1% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
  • D21 Naming Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22's deterministic call-shape rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. This says nothing about whether that surface is consistent.
  • D24 Comment Value — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
  • D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
  • 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. `CommunicationBridge/ServiceDelegate.swift`, `Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/ChatPanel.swift`, `Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Views/BotMessage.swift`, `Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Views/FunctionMessage.swift`, `Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Views/UserMessage.swift`, … (+53 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.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and this repository's container is swift-dependencies, whose lifetimes are not modelled 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 (ExtensionService/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 this repository's Swift, c, objectivec is most of its product and 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 this repository's Swift, c, objectivec is most of its product and 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 named async function in this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, nor any Go, PHP or Dart function or Kotlin suspend function, makes a request that can be cancelled (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch; net/http, net.Dial; amphp; Dio; Ktor, OkHttp), so there is nothing to judge, 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.
  • 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 this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, 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.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • 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 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • 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.
  • 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 Complexity6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

41 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was RequestBody.init at 54. A further 7 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 CodeiumSupportedLanguage.init at 66 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 6 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumSupportedLanguage.swift (CodeiumSupportedLanguage.init at 66), Tool/Sources/SuggestionBasic/LanguageIdentifierFromFilePath.swift (LanguageIdentifier.fileExtensions at 58), Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Views/BotMessage.swift (ReferenceIcon.body at 35), Tool/Sources/Preferences/Types/ChatGPTModel.swift (ChatGPTModel.maxToken at 21), Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift (SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.contextContainingNode at 18), and 1 more not listed here. 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.

RequestBody.init (cyclomatic 54)Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1049
Chat.body (cyclomatic 50)Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Chat.swift:128
ChatPanel.body (cyclomatic 47)Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/ChatPanel.swift:96
Widget.body (cyclomatic 38)Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/Widget.swift:129
ChatModelEdit.body (cyclomatic 37)Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:98

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

What to do

  1. Bring the 41 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with RequestBody.init (cyclomatic 54), Chat.body (cyclomatic 50), ChatPanel.body (cyclomatic 47). — 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 41 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 6.7 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity5.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

75 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was RequestBody.init at 145.

RequestBody.init (cognitive 145)Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1049
ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.yield (cognitive 100)Tool/Sources/ModificationBasic/ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.swift:81
ChatGPTService.send (cognitive 75)Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/ChatGPTService.swift:138
ChatPanel.body (cognitive 53)Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/ChatPanel.swift:96
CodeDiff.diff (cognitive 50)Tool/Sources/CodeDiff/CodeDiff.swift:137

+ 70 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 3 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with RequestBody.init (cognitive 145), ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.yield (cognitive 100), ChatGPTService.send (cognitive 75). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 3 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 5.3 to about 6.3/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
  2. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes8.4 / 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

22 god class(es) detected.

MethodTooLong: Chat.body · ×17Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Chat.swift:128
FileTooLong: SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift · ×3Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift
FunctionTooLong: PromptToCodePanelView.swift.top-level codeCore/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1083
ClassTooLong: PseudoCommandHandlerCore/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:30

What to do

  1. Resolve the 17 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Chat.swift, OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift, SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with PromptToCodePanelView.swift, OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift, PseudoCommandHandler.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with PromptToCodePanelView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D4 · Code Duplication8.9 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

127 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 6 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×9Core/Sources/ChatService/AllPlugins.swift:47
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×7Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:117
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×6Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift:21
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×6Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:277
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×6Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Styles.swift:7

+ 63 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 9 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AllPlugins.swift, OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift, Workspace+SuggestionService.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 7 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift (2), ChatModelManagement.swift, EditCustomCommandView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift, OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift, SharedPanelView.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D5 · Coupling7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

75 production modules (SwiftPM+Xcode), 0 dependency cycle(s), 2 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; a workspace's implicit (product-name) dependency is not visible there; 21 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 72 of the 75 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: AIModel · ×21
Unstable project ChatGPTChatTab
Unstable project CodeiumService

What to do

  1. Resolve the 21 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Unstable project ChatGPTChatTab finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Unstable project CodeiumService finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.2 / 10Stronggated by 9 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

9 of 132 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: String (LCOM4 13) · ×9Tool/Sources/ChatBasic/ChatGPTFunction.swift:38

What to do

  1. Resolve the 9 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with ChatGPTFunction.swift, Styles.swift, GitHubCopilotService.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D9 · Test Distribution9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

214 test methods: 201 unit, 0 integration, 13 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.3 / 10Adequategated by 5 critical 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 7 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 214 tests.

Assertions commented out: example · ×2ChatPlugins/Tests/ChatPluginsTests/ChatPluginsTests.swift:4
Test project verifies nothing: ChatPluginsTests · ×2ChatPlugins/Tests/ChatPluginsTests/ChatPluginsTests.swift:4
No assertions (empty test): test_selecting_a_line_in_freestanding_macro_the_scope_should_be_the_macroTool/Tests/FocusedCodeFinderTests/SwiftFocusedCodeFinderTests.swift:345
No assertions: test_breakLines · ×4Tool/Tests/SuggestionBasicTests/BreakLinePerformanceTests.swift:6

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Assertions commented out finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ChatPluginsTests.swift, WindowTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ChatPluginsTests.swift, WindowTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SwiftFocusedCodeFinderTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  4. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — 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.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene6.0 4.8 / 10Weak✓ 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 4.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 80% · ceiling Verified

51 outdated direct SwiftPM dependencies, 22 pinning defect(s). 83 of 104 direct dependencies had their releases listed (0 naming no readable repository, 21 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: keyboardshortcuts · ×18
Dependency not covered by the committed resolution: keyboardshortcuts · ×4
Outdated: aexml · ×37

What to do

  1. Resolve the 18 Floating branch dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 Dependency not covered by the committed resolution finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — 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.

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

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

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

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

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 49 SwiftPM package(s) use a banned license. SwiftPM has no package registry, so each package's licence is the one its repository declares: 45 of them read from the licence file the repository carries at the revision Package.resolved pins, and 4 — 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. 6 of them are declared by a manifest that commits no Package.resolved (a library, whose resolution is its consumer's), so their own dependencies are resolved by whoever builds it and are not in this verdict. 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. ★ 4 package(s) could not be read at a pinned revision and are not known to the index, and were NOT graded — this verdict does not cover them: `cgeventoverride`, `copilotforxcodekit`, `generative-ai-swift`, `keyboardshortcuts`.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 7 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

7 deducted task-comment markers across 56856 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×6Tool/Package.swift:65
HackCommentCore/Sources/HostApp/SharedComponents/EditableText.swift:4

What to do

  1. Resolve the 6 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AXUIElement.swift (2), Package.swift, SwiftFocusedCodeFinderTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EditableText.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D26 · Project Cohesion2.0 / 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 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 of 5 build units (SwiftPM, Xcode) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

  1. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

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

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding○ 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

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 1 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `Core/Sources/LaunchAgentManager/LaunchAgentManager.swift` (line 69) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 1 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

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.

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 237 of the 396 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.

D35 · Change Coupling9.4 / 10Stronggated by 10 serious findings✓ 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: ChatGPTService.swift↔Models.swift 70%; DebugView.swift↔Keys.swift 70%; SuggestionCommandHandler.swift↔SourceEditorExtension.swift 70%

Change coupling: DebugView.swift ↔ Keys.swift · ×8Core/Sources/HostApp/DebugView.swift:1
Change coupling clique: SuggestionCommandHandler.swift, SourceEditorExtension.swift, XPCServiceProtocol.swiftCore/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/SuggestionCommandHandler.swift
Change-coupling hub: ChatGPTService.swift → AskChatGPT.swift, OpenAIChat.swift, GoogleAIChatCompletionsService.swift, Models.swiftTool/Sources/OpenAIService/ChatGPTService.swift

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with DebugView.swift, ChatPanel.swift, AskChatGPT.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Change coupling clique finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with SuggestionCommandHandler.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Change-coupling hub finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with ChatGPTService.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

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.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.9 / 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.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

AX9 · CQS / query purity9.9 / 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.

  • `ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.getActiveDocumentContext` is a read-named query yet it performs a durable write on the read path (a persist to a store/client). A query must stay side-effect-free so reads are safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica; move the write into a command. — Tool/Sources/ChatContextCollectors/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.swift:102

What to do

  • Keep query handlers read-only — move the writes/event-publishes into a command handler so reads stay safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica.
ES1 · Fold determinism10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

ES2 · Immutable events1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether domain events stay immutable (a `struct` with `let` fields) rather than carrying mutable state.

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

  • `UnTypedEvent` conforms to a domain-event contract but carries mutable state (a `class` event, or a `struct` event with a mutable `var`). Events are immutable facts — model them as a `struct` with `let` fields so a recorded event can never be rewritten. — Tool/Sources/LangChain/Callback.swift:9
M1 · Documentation (README)7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 2 of 4 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1 pts.
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.
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.
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.

P1 · CI/CD gates1.5 / 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.

  • A workflow is configured, but the repository's only workflow is `REDACTED`, which neither runs on a code change (no `push` or `pull_request` trigger) nor checks the code out — so nothing here builds or tests a change before it merges. This is automation for the repository's ISSUES AND HOUSEKEEPING, not a gate on its code: a pull request can land without anything having compiled or run it. The rows about missing build and test steps are deliberately not reported beside this one, because there is no pipeline for them to be missing from — adding the gate is one action, not three.

What to do

  • Add a CI workflow that triggers on push and pull_request, checks the code out, and runs the build and the test suite — so a change cannot merge without having been compiled and exercised.
P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

P2 · Observability0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • No logging or diagnostics emission found. This repository ships a binary its users launch rather than a service you operate, so there is no operator to page — but when a run fails on a user's machine, neither they nor you have anything to read.

What to do

  • Write a diagnostic trail the user can hand back with a bug report: log through `os.Logger` (one per subsystem), which the unified log keeps and a sysdiagnose carries to you. Start with the error paths that emit nothing — a discarded error is the failure the user cannot describe and you cannot reproduce.
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) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 798 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

  • Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — 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.
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.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.1 / 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 8 use(s) across 64,432 production line(s) (~0.1/1k). 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.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

X3 · Exception handling5.9 / 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. (×18) — Tool/Sources/XPCShared/XPCService.swift:160, Tool/Sources/WebSearchService/SearchServices/HeadlessBrowserSearchService.swift:120, Tool/Sources/LangChain/VectorStore/TemporaryUSearch.swift:37, …
  • 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. (×2) — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SyntaxHighlighting.swift:303, Core/Sources/ChatService/ChatService.swift:112

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health78%StrongSolid.
Architecture90%Adequate — gated by D26Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity58%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness27%Weak — gated by P1, P2, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security98%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Event Sourcing49%Adequate — gated by ES2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance78%StrongSolid.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — 16 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
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 — 58 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — 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. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
  • 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
  • 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 reliability not included — the .swift suite was found but not re-run
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • 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.
  • D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; JavaScript, Swift not measured.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — API consistency is measured on C# only; the exposed Swift surface was not measured.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D24 Comment Value — D24 reads C# and Visual Basic comments only — this repository's production source is .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) — 58 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
  • 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
  • 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 — Swift suite
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • 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
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript, Swift source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
  • P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `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.
  • X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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 — 9 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · Assertions commented out · ×2
  • Assertions commented out: example ChatPlugins/Tests/ChatPluginsTests/ChatPluginsTests.swift:4 — The test body contains commented-out assertion calls and no live one — it runs, verifies nothing, and still passes. Restore the assertions or delete the test; a green test that checks nothing is worse than an absent one.
  • Assertions commented out: example OverlayWindow/Tests/OverlayWindowTests/WindowTests.swift:3 — The test body contains commented-out assertion calls and no live one — it runs, verifies nothing, and still passes. Restore the assertions or delete the test; a green test that checks nothing is worse than an absent one.
D10 · Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing · ×2
  • Test project verifies nothing: ChatPluginsTests ChatPlugins/Tests/ChatPluginsTests/ChatPluginsTests.swift:4 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `ChatPluginsTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. 1 of them has its assertions commented out, so this suite did verify conventionally and was switched off — it is not an approval/verifier harness.
  • Test project verifies nothing: OverlayWindowTests OverlayWindow/Tests/OverlayWindowTests/WindowTests.swift:3 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 1 of 1 tests in `OverlayWindowTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. 1 of them has its assertions commented out, so this suite did verify conventionally and was switched off — it is not an approval/verifier harness.
AX9 · CQS / query purity · Query writes persistent state on the read path · ×1
  • Query writes persistent state on the read path: ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.getActiveDocumentContext Tool/Sources/ChatContextCollectors/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.swift:102 — `ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.getActiveDocumentContext` is a read-named query yet it performs a durable write on the read path (a persist to a store/client). A query must stay side-effect-free so reads are safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica; move the write into a command.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×1
  • No assertions (empty test): test_selecting_a_line_in_freestanding_macro_the_scope_should_be_the_macro Tool/Tests/FocusedCodeFinderTests/SwiftFocusedCodeFinderTests.swift:345 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
ES2 · Immutable events · Mutable domain event · ×1
  • Mutable domain event: UnTypedEvent Tool/Sources/LangChain/Callback.swift:9 — `UnTypedEvent` conforms to a domain-event contract but carries mutable state (a `class` event, or a `struct` event with a mutable `var`). Events are immutable facts — model them as a `struct` with `let` fields so a recorded event can never be rewritten.
Serious — 368 finding(s)
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×21
  • Off the main sequence: AIModel — AIModel: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: ActiveApplicationMonitor — ActiveApplicationMonitor: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 7 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: AsyncPassthroughSubject — AsyncPassthroughSubject: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Client — Client: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: CustomAsyncAlgorithms — CustomAsyncAlgorithms: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DebounceFunction — DebounceFunction: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 2 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: FileChangeChecker — FileChangeChecker: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: JoinJSON — JoinJSON: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: LaunchAgentManager — LaunchAgentManager: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 2 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Logger — Logger: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 13 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: PromptToCodeService — PromptToCodeService: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: SuggestionBasic — SuggestionBasic: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 16 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Toast — Toast: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: UserDefaultsObserver — UserDefaultsObserver: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: WebScrapper — WebScrapper: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: HostApp — HostApp: abstractness 0.02, instability 0.00, distance 0.98 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Service — Service: abstractness 0.06, instability 0.00, distance 0.94 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: AXExtension — AXExtension: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.11, distance 0.89 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 8 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: AppActivator — AppActivator: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.13, distance 0.88 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 7 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: AXNotificationStream — AXNotificationStream: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.20, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 8 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: ChatService — ChatService: abstractness 0.25, instability 0.00, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Floating branch dependency · ×18
  • Floating branch dependency: keyboardshortcuts — Dependency `keyboardshortcuts` is declared in Core/Package.swift against branch `main` — the declaration pins no immutable point, so `swift package update` moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (`from:`, `.upToNextMajor(from:)`, `exact:`) or to a `revision:` commit SHA.
  • Floating branch dependency: highlightr — Dependency `highlightr` is declared in Core/Package.swift against branch `master` — the declaration pins no immutable point, so `swift package update` moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (`from:`, `.upToNextMajor(from:)`, `exact:`) or to a `revision:` commit SHA.
  • Floating branch dependency: tiktoken — Dependency `tiktoken` is declared in Tool/Package.swift against branch `main` — the declaration pins no immutable point, so `swift package update` moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (`from:`, `.upToNextMajor(from:)`, `exact:`) or to a `revision:` commit SHA.
  • Floating branch dependency: highlightr — Dependency `highlightr` is declared in Tool/Package.swift against branch `master` — the declaration pins no immutable point, so `swift package update` moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (`from:`, `.upToNextMajor(from:)`, `exact:`) or to a `revision:` commit SHA.
  • Floating branch dependency: generative-ai-swift — Dependency `generative-ai-swift` is declared in Tool/Package.swift against branch `support-setting-base-url` — the declaration pins no immutable point, so `swift package update` moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (`from:`, `.upToNextMajor(from:)`, `exact:`) or to a `revision:` commit SHA.
  • Floating branch dependency: copilotforxcodekit — Dependency `copilotforxcodekit` is declared in Tool/Package.swift against branch `feature/custom-chat-tab` — the declaration pins no immutable point, so `swift package update` moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (`from:`, `.upToNextMajor(from:)`, `exact:`) or to a `revision:` commit SHA.
  • Floating branch dependency: swifttreesitter — Dependency `swifttreesitter` is declared in Tool/Package.swift against branch `main` — the declaration pins no immutable point, so `swift package update` moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (`from:`, `.upToNextMajor(from:)`, `exact:`) or to a `revision:` commit SHA.
  • Floating branch dependency: tree-sitter-objc — Dependency `tree-sitter-objc` is declared in Tool/Package.swift against branch `feature/spm` — the declaration pins no immutable point, so `swift package update` moves this dependency to whatever that branch holds at the time, which is code nobody reviewed. Pin it to a version requirement (`from:`, `.upToNextMajor(from:)`, `exact:`) or to a `revision:` commit SHA.
  • Floating branch dependency: splash — Dependency `splash` is resolved in Copilot for Xcode.xcodeproj/project.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `master` 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.
  • Floating branch dependency: tiktoken — Dependency `tiktoken` is resolved in Copilot for Xcode.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.
  • Floating branch dependency: copilotforxcodekit — Dependency `copilotforxcodekit` is resolved in Copilot for Xcode.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `feature/custom-chat-tab` 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.
  • Floating branch dependency: generative-ai-swift — Dependency `generative-ai-swift` is resolved in Copilot for Xcode.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `support-setting-base-url` 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.
  • Floating branch dependency: highlightr — Dependency `highlightr` is resolved in Copilot for Xcode.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `master` 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.
  • Floating branch dependency: indexstore-db — Dependency `indexstore-db` is resolved in Copilot for Xcode.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `release/6.1` 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.
  • Floating branch dependency: keyboardshortcuts — Dependency `keyboardshortcuts` is resolved in Copilot for Xcode.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.
  • Floating branch dependency: swifttreesitter — Dependency `swifttreesitter` is resolved in Copilot for Xcode.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.
  • Floating branch dependency: tiktoken — Dependency `tiktoken` is resolved in Copilot for Xcode.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.
  • Floating branch dependency: tree-sitter-objc — Dependency `tree-sitter-objc` is resolved in Copilot for Xcode.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved against branch `feature/spm` 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.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×18
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) Tool/Sources/XPCShared/XPCService.swift:160 — `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) Tool/Sources/WebSearchService/SearchServices/HeadlessBrowserSearchService.swift:120 — `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) Tool/Sources/LangChain/VectorStore/TemporaryUSearch.swift:37 — `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) Tool/Sources/LangChain/VectorStore/TemporaryUSearch.swift:48 — `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) Tool/Sources/LangChain/Chains/RelevantInformationExtractionChain.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) Tool/Sources/LangChain/Chains/RelevantInformationExtractionChain.swift:136 — `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) Tool/Sources/LangChain/Chains/StructuredOutputChatModelChain.swift:119 — `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) Tool/Sources/GitIgnoreCheck/GitIgnoreCheck.swift:63 — `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) Tool/Sources/GitIgnoreCheck/GitIgnoreCheck.swift:87 — `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) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotChatService.swift:116 — `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) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotChatService.swift:126 — `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) Tool/Sources/FileSystem/FileSystem.swift:871 — `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) Tool/Sources/FileSystem/FileSystem.swift:884 — `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) Tool/Sources/FileSystem/FileSystem.swift:897 — `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) Tool/Sources/FileSystem/FileSystem.swift:910 — `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) Tool/Sources/ChatContextCollector/ChatContextCollector.swift:93 — `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) Core/Sources/XcodeThemeController/XcodeThemeController.swift:242 — `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) Core/Sources/Service/RealtimeSuggestionController.swift:129 — `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 · MethodTooLong · ×17
  • MethodTooLong: Chat.body Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Chat.swift:128 — MethodTooLong — body runs 194 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 94 over it, 1.94× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: RequestBody.init Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1049 — MethodTooLong — init runs 179 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 79 over it, 1.79× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.contextContainingNode Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift:63 — MethodTooLong — contextContainingNode runs 178 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 78 over it, 1.78× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: General.body Core/Sources/HostApp/General.swift:56 — MethodTooLong — body runs 167 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 67 over it, 1.67× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: SimpleModificationAgent.modifyCode Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:47 — MethodTooLong — modifyCode runs 167 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 67 over it, 1.67× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: Widget.body Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/Widget.swift:129 — MethodTooLong — body runs 163 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 63 over it, 1.63× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: XcodeThemeParser.parseXCColorTheme Core/Sources/XcodeThemeController/XcodeThemeParser.swift:106 — MethodTooLong — parseXCColorTheme runs 158 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 58 over it, 1.58× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: ChatPanel.body Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/ChatPanel.swift:96 — MethodTooLong — body runs 145 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 45 over it, 1.45× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: PromptToCodePanel.body Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/PromptToCodePanel.swift:110 — MethodTooLong — body runs 145 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 45 over it, 1.45× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: HorizontalMovable.framesForWindows Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetPositionStrategy.swift:104 — MethodTooLong — framesForWindows runs 142 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 42 over it, 1.42× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: GitHubCopilotView.body Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/GitHubCopilotView.swift:145 — MethodTooLong — body runs 140 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 40 over it, 1.40× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: CodeiumSupportedLanguage.init Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumSupportedLanguage.swift:72 — MethodTooLong — init runs 134 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 34 over it, 1.34× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: GitHubCopilotBaseService.init Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:129 — MethodTooLong — init runs 134 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 34 over it, 1.34× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: ChatModelEdit.body Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:98 — MethodTooLong — body runs 133 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 33 over it, 1.33× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: LanguageIdentifier.fileExtensions Tool/Sources/SuggestionBasic/LanguageIdentifierFromFilePath.swift:51 — MethodTooLong — fileExtensions runs 132 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.32× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: GUI.body Core/Sources/Service/GUI/GraphicalUserInterfaceController.swift:82 — MethodTooLong — body runs 119 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 19 over it, 1.19× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
  • MethodTooLong: EmbeddingModelEdit.body Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift:83 — MethodTooLong — body runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× 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 (5 lines × 2) · ×9
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Core/Sources/ChatService/AllPlugins.swift:47 — Core/Sources/ChatService/AllPlugins.swift:47-51 | Core/Sources/LegacyChatPlugin/TerminalChatPlugin.swift:21-25 — 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `delegate` to `any LegacyChatPluginDelegate` in one and `LegacyChatPluginDelegate` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:280 — Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:280-284 | Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:296-300 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:280` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/WorkspaceSuggestionService/Workspace+SuggestionService.swift:103 — Tool/Sources/WorkspaceSuggestionService/Workspace+SuggestionService.swift:103-107 | Tool/Sources/WorkspaceSuggestionService/Workspace+SuggestionService.swift:131-135 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/WorkspaceSuggestionService/Workspace+SuggestionService.swift:103` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:799 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:799-803 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:214-218 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift` and `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 129 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:451 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:451-455 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift:384-388 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift` and `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 63 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/WebSearchService/SearchServices/AppleDocumentationSearchService.swift:22 — Tool/Sources/WebSearchService/SearchServices/AppleDocumentationSearchService.swift:22-26 | Tool/Sources/WebSearchService/SearchServices/HeadlessBrowserSearchService.swift:51-55 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Core/Sources/LaunchAgentManager/LaunchAgentManager.swift:19 — Core/Sources/LaunchAgentManager/LaunchAgentManager.swift:19-23 | Tool/Sources/SuggestionProvider/SuggestionProvider.swift:54-58 — 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) Tool/Sources/ChatBasic/ChatGPTFunction.swift:124 — Tool/Sources/ChatBasic/ChatGPTFunction.swift:124-128 | Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/ActiveDocumentContext.swift:22-26 — 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) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:64 — Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:64-68 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:92-96 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×9
  • Low cohesion: String (LCOM4 13) Tool/Sources/ChatBasic/ChatGPTFunction.swift:38 — String's methods fall into 13 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 13 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: View (LCOM4 12) Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Styles.swift:36 — View's methods fall into 12 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 12 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: GitHubCopilotService (LCOM4 8) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:436 — GitHubCopilotService's methods fall into 8 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 8 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: AXUIElement (LCOM4 7) Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:7 — AXUIElement's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: AppDelegate (LCOM4 7) CommunicationBridge/main.swift:4 — AppDelegate's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: UpdaterDelegate (LCOM4 5) Core/Sources/UpdateChecker/UpdateChecker.swift:58 — UpdaterDelegate'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: BuiltinExtensionSuggestionServiceProvider (LCOM4 4) Tool/Sources/BuiltinExtension/BuiltinExtensionSuggestionServiceProvider.swift:8 — BuiltinExtensionSuggestionServiceProvider'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.
  • Low cohesion: ChatAgent (LCOM4 4) Tool/Sources/LangChain/Agents/ChatAgent.swift:36 — ChatAgent'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.
  • Low cohesion: AppDelegate (LCOM4 4) ExtensionService/AppDelegate.swift:20 — AppDelegate'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.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×8
  • Change coupling: DebugView.swift ↔ Keys.swift Core/Sources/HostApp/DebugView.swift:1 — `Core/Sources/HostApp/DebugView.swift` and `Tool/Sources/Preferences/Keys.swift` change together 70% of the time (14 of the 20 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). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 14 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `4543fb2b` Add toggle to prevent automatic launch agent installation; `300f1c01` Add toggle to use Cloudflare domain name for license check; `1ba39c71` Remove a feature flag — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: ChatPanel.swift ↔ Styles.swift Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/ChatPanel.swift:1 — `Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/ChatPanel.swift` and `Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Styles.swift` change together 64% of the time (7 of the 11 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). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `cf9181ca` Improve code highlighting performance in chat; `2effc397` Improve performance of code highlighting in chat; `b8433c19` Support changing code font of suggestion, chat and prompt to code — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: AskChatGPT.swift ↔ OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift Core/Sources/LegacyChatPlugin/AskChatGPT.swift:1 — `Core/Sources/LegacyChatPlugin/AskChatGPT.swift` and `Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift` change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 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). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `b29d1aa3` Fix message count (at that commit the file was still `Core/Sources/ChatPlugin/AskChatGPT.swift`); `d4c9c242` WIP (at that commit the file was still `Core/Sources/ChatPlugin/AskChatGPT.swift`); `2e88f832` Count functions tokens (at that commit the files were still `Core/Sources/ChatPlugin/AskChatGPT.swift` and `Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeAPI.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: DynamicContextController.swift ↔ LegacyActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.swift Core/Sources/ChatService/DynamicContextController.swift:1 — `Core/Sources/ChatService/DynamicContextController.swift` and `Tool/Sources/ChatContextCollectors/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector/LegacyActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.swift` change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 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). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `956f7129` Add Scope enum to represent scopes; `60f4ff59` Adjust ChatContext (at that commit the file was still `Core/Sources/ChatContextCollectors/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector/LegacyActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.swift`); `68575c2f` ChatContextCollector (at that commit the file was still `Core/Sources/ChatContextCollectors/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector/LegacyActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: PresentInWindowSuggestionPresenter.swift ↔ SuggestionWidgetController.swift Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionPresenter/PresentInWindowSuggestionPresenter.swift:1 — `Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionPresenter/PresentInWindowSuggestionPresenter.swift` and `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionWidgetController.swift` change together 53% of the time (8 of the 15 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). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `2a36d2e3` Tweak the behavior of activating the app on chat; `11a47625` Support prompt to code in widget; `2166af45` Isolate chat box and suggestion panel — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: ChatGPTMemory.swift ↔ Models.swift Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Memory/ChatGPTMemory.swift:1 — `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Memory/ChatGPTMemory.swift` and `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Models.swift` change together 50% of the time (7 of the 14 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). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `21d7ae4c` Put tool call responses into the tool call struct; `a412c23f` Move tool call responses into its source assistant message; `42a8efb1` Support tool call — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: ObjectiveCCodeFinder.swift ↔ SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/ObjectiveC/ObjectiveCCodeFinder.swift:1 — `Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/ObjectiveC/ObjectiveCCodeFinder.swift` and `Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `3bbaf83a` Update to only use closure and case as focused range when it's more t…; `69b1b312` Recover line ending when possible; `5b4d29c4` Replace separator: "\n" with whereSeparator: \.isNewline — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: Widget.swift ↔ AppActivator.swift Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/Widget.swift:1 — `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/Widget.swift` and `Tool/Sources/AppActivator/AppActivator.swift` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 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). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `de89a060` Use new form of XcodeInspector; `9bee878a` Access XcodeInspector thru actor (at that commit the file was still `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/WidgetFeature.swift`); `84fc894d` Make runningApplication private (at that commit the file was still `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/WidgetFeature.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×7
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:117 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:117-128 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelManagement.swift:109-120 — `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelManagement.swift` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 68 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:117` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/EditCustomCommandView.swift:283 — Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/EditCustomCommandView.swift:283-294 | Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/EditCustomCommandView.swift:329-340 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/EditCustomCommandView.swift:283` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetPositionStrategy.swift:406 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetPositionStrategy.swift:406-417 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetPositionStrategy.swift:424-435 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Core/Sources/UserDefaultsObserver/UserDefaultsObserver.swift:8 — Core/Sources/UserDefaultsObserver/UserDefaultsObserver.swift:8-19 | Tool/Sources/UserDefaultsObserver/UserDefaultsObserver.swift:8-19 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/UserDefaultsObserver/UserDefaultsObserver.swift` and `Tool/Sources/UserDefaultsObserver/UserDefaultsObserver.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:264 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:264-275 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:677-688 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:264` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:260` calls `hasPrefix`, `init` and `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:676` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 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 (12 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:37 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:37-48 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:38-49 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift` and `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 129 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:115 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:115-126 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:183-194 — 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 `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:115` 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.
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×6
  • TodoComment Tool/Package.swift:65 — // TODO: Update LanguageClient some day. — 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 Tool/Tests/FocusedCodeFinderTests/SwiftFocusedCodeFinderTests.swift:346 — // TODO: — 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 Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:337 — /// - todo: Make it not recursive. — 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 Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:399 — /// - todo: Make it not recursive. — 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 Core/Tests/ServiceTests/FilespaceSuggestionInvalidationTests.swift:44 — // TODO: What — 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 Core/Sources/LaunchAgentManager/LaunchAgentManager.swift:165 — // TODO: A more robust way to locate the executable. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift:21 — Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift:21-33 | Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureEnabledProjectListView.swift:20-32 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureEnabledProjectListView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift:21` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:15 — Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:15-27 | Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/PreviewPromptToCodeService.swift:12-24 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:15` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SharedPanelView.swift:47 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SharedPanelView.swift:47-59 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelView.swift:31-43 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SharedPanelView.swift:47` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:187 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:187-199 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotInstallationManager.swift:184-196 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift` and `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotInstallationManager.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 64 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:187` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:79 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:79-91 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/CodeBlock.swift:75-87 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:79` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:158 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:158-170 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:126-138 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 180 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:277 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:277-285 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift:234-242 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:277` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `state` to `ChatModelEdit.State` in one and `EmbeddingModelEdit.State` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/LangChain/DocumentLoader/WebLoader.swift:150 — Tool/Sources/LangChain/DocumentLoader/WebLoader.swift:150-158 | Tool/Sources/WebScrapper/WebScrapper.swift:143-151 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:225 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:225-233 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:636-644 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:225` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:68 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:68-76 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift:131-139 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift` and `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 63 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:68` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/CustomTextEditor.swift:16 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/CustomTextEditor.swift:16-24 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/CustomTextEditor.swift:65-73 — 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 `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/CustomTextEditor.swift:16` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift:927 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift:927-935 | OverlayWindow/Sources/OverlayWindow/OverlayPanel.swift:143-151 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Styles.swift:7 — Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Styles.swift:7-14 | Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Styles.swift:16-23 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:190 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:190-197 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:202-209 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:21 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:21-28 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotSuggestionService.swift:21-28 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift` and `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotSuggestionService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:21` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `serviceLocator` to `ServiceLocator` in one and `ServiceLocatorType` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:242 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:242-249 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:236-243 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 180 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:131 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:131-138 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/GitHubCopilotView.swift:136-143 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Core/Sources/UserDefaultsObserver/UserDefaultsObserver.swift:27 — Core/Sources/UserDefaultsObserver/UserDefaultsObserver.swift:27-34 | Tool/Sources/UserDefaultsObserver/UserDefaultsObserver.swift:27-34 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/UserDefaultsObserver/UserDefaultsObserver.swift` and `Tool/Sources/UserDefaultsObserver/UserDefaultsObserver.swift` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:359 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:359-369 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:512-522 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:359` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:371` calls `Text`, `Image` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:523` 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 (11 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:195 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:195-205 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/GitHubCopilotView.swift:329-339 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:195` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/GitHubCopilotView.swift:340` calls `checkStatus` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:206` 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 (11 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:203 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:203-213 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotInstallationManager.swift:200-210 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift` and `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotInstallationManager.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 64 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:203` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/LangChain/VectorStore/TemporaryUSearch.swift:118 — Tool/Sources/LangChain/VectorStore/TemporaryUSearch.swift:118-128 | Tool/Sources/LangChain/VectorStore/TemporaryUSearch.swift:136-146 — 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 `Tool/Sources/LangChain/VectorStore/TemporaryUSearch.swift:118` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:26 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:26-36 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:67-77 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:274 — Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:274-279 | Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:286-295 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:274` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/ChatWindowView.swift:157 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/ChatWindowView.swift:157-162 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/PromptToCodePanelGroupView.swift:45-50 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/ChatWindowView.swift:157` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:89 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:89-94 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift:74-79 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/AIModel/ChatModel.swift:12 — Tool/Sources/AIModel/ChatModel.swift:12-17 | Tool/Sources/AIModel/EmbeddingModel.swift:12-17 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/CodeiumExtension.swift:161 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/CodeiumExtension.swift:161-166 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/GitHubCopilotExtension.swift:160-165 — 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.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×4
  • No assertions: test_breakLines Tool/Tests/SuggestionBasicTests/BreakLinePerformanceTests.swift:6 — 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: test_source_editor_cache_get_content_comparison Tool/Tests/XcodeInspectorTests/SourceEditorCachePerformanceTests.swift:7 — 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: test_usearch Tool/Tests/LangChainTests/VectorStoreTests/TemporaryUSearchTests.swift:10 — 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: test_setting_data Tool/Tests/LangChainTests/VectorStoreTests/TemporaryUSearchTests.swift:27 — 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.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency not covered by the committed resolution · ×4
  • Dependency not covered by the committed resolution: keyboardshortcuts — `keyboardshortcuts` is declared in Core/Package.swift but has no entry in the committed `Package.resolved` beside it, so its version is resolved rather than pinned. Resolve the package and commit the updated `Package.resolved`.
  • Dependency not covered by the committed resolution: cgeventoverride — `cgeventoverride` is declared in Core/Package.swift but has no entry in the committed `Package.resolved` beside it, so its version is resolved rather than pinned. Resolve the package and commit the updated `Package.resolved`.
  • Dependency not covered by the committed resolution: generative-ai-swift — `generative-ai-swift` is declared in Tool/Package.swift but has no entry in the committed `Package.resolved` beside it, so its version is resolved rather than pinned. Resolve the package and commit the updated `Package.resolved`.
  • Dependency not covered by the committed resolution: copilotforxcodekit — `copilotforxcodekit` is declared in Tool/Package.swift but has no entry in the committed `Package.resolved` beside it, so its version is resolved rather than pinned. Resolve the package and commit the updated `Package.resolved`.
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×4
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:59 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:59-80 | Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:82-103 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotSuggestionService.swift:61-82 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotSuggestionService.swift:84-105 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/GitHubCopilotExtension.swift:273 — Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/GitHubCopilotExtension.swift:273-330 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/GitHubCopilotChatCompletionsService.swift:69-110 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/GitHubCopilotEmbeddingService.swift:34-70 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:166-212 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:232 — Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:232-238 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:248-254 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:300-304 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:314-320 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:400 — Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:400-404 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:425-429 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:444-448 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:461-465 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:11 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:11-25 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:10-24 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 180 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:11` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:27` calls `GoogleAIForm` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:26` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 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 (15 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:151 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:151-165 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelManagement.swift:143-157 — `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelManagement.swift` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 68 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift:58 — Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift:58-72 | Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureEnabledProjectListView.swift:65-79 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureEnabledProjectListView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift:58` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetView.swift:284 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetView.swift:284-298 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetView.swift:314-328 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetView.swift:284` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:189 — Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:189-195 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:203-209 — 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 `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:189` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:39 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:39-45 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotSuggestionService.swift:40-46 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift` and `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotSuggestionService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `serviceLocator` to `ServiceLocator` in one and `ServiceLocatorType` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/CodeiumExtension.swift:145 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/CodeiumExtension.swift:145-151 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/GitHubCopilotExtension.swift:140-146 — 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 (7 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Configuration/ChatGPTConfiguration.swift:33 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Configuration/ChatGPTConfiguration.swift:33-39 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Configuration/EmbeddingConfiguration.swift:29-35 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×3
  • FileTooLong: SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift — FileTooLong — 907 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 407 over it, 1.81× 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: APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift — FileTooLong — 901 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 401 over it, 1.80× 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: SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift — FileTooLong — 566 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 76% of them inside a single declaration: PseudoCommandHandler (30-588). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 66 over it, 1.13× 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:98 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:98-125 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift:83-110 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:98` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:245 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:245-272 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift:202-229 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:245` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/CustomCommandView.swift:269 — Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/CustomCommandView.swift:269-296 | Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/CustomCommandView.swift:319-346 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/CustomCommandView.swift:269` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:359 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:359-374 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:597-612 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:359` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:613` calls `dynamicHeightTextInFormWorkaround` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:375` 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.
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift:90 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift:90-105 | OverlayWindow/Sources/OverlayWindow/OverlayWindowController.swift:60-75 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/ModificationBasic/ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.swift:160 — Tool/Sources/ModificationBasic/ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.swift:160-175 | Tool/Sources/ModificationBasic/ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.swift:204-219 — 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 `Tool/Sources/ModificationBasic/ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.swift:160` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Tool/Sources/ModificationBasic/ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.swift:156` calls `flushBuffer`, `appendBuffer` and `Tool/Sources/ModificationBasic/ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.swift:203` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 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 (14 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:55 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:55-68 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:56-69 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift` and `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 129 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:391 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:391-404 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:443-456 — 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 `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:391` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/Terminal/Terminal.swift:61 — Tool/Sources/Terminal/Terminal.swift:61-74 | Tool/Sources/Terminal/Terminal.swift:190-203 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ChatCompletionsAPIDefinition.swift:178 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ChatCompletionsAPIDefinition.swift:178-188 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/EmbeddingAPIDefinitions.swift:16-26 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:223-233 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ChatCompletionsAPIDefinition.swift:178` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:242 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:242-252 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:653-663 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:113-123 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:242` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:665` calls `unauthorized` and `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:253` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 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 (11 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift:395 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift:395-405 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift:409-419 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift:423-433 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift:395` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (43 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (43 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:195 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:195-237 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:144-186 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 180 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
  • Duplicated block (43 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ChatCompletionsAPIBuilder.swift:29 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ChatCompletionsAPIBuilder.swift:29-71 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ChatCompletionsAPIBuilder.swift:79-121 — 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 (34 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (34 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1158 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1158-1191 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1213-1246 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1158` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (34 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/EmbeddingService.swift:13 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/EmbeddingService.swift:13-46 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/EmbeddingService.swift:85-118 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:404 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:404-432 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:311-339 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 180 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:404` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/ChatWindowView.swift:320 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/ChatWindowView.swift:320-348 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/PromptToCodePanelGroupView.swift:111-139 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/ChatWindowView.swift:320` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:38 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:38-64 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:79-105 — 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 `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:38` 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. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:97 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:97-123 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift:70-96 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift` and `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 63 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:97` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/GitHubCopilotChatCompletionsService.swift:81 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/GitHubCopilotChatCompletionsService.swift:81-105 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/GitHubCopilotEmbeddingService.swift:41-65 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/GitHubCopilotChatCompletionsService.swift:81` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:649 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:649-673 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:109-133 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift` and `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 129 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:32 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:32-51 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:27-46 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 180 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:32` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:31` calls `ClaudeForm` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:26` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 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 (20 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeDiff/CodeDiff.swift:577 — Tool/Sources/CodeDiff/CodeDiff.swift:577-596 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift:469-488 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/CodeDiff/CodeDiff.swift:577` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:134 — Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:134-150 | Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:152-168 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/AIModel/ChatModel.swift:169 — Tool/Sources/AIModel/ChatModel.swift:169-185 | Tool/Sources/AIModel/EmbeddingModel.swift:75-91 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/AIModel/ChatModel.swift:169` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OllamaEmbeddingService.swift:38 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OllamaEmbeddingService.swift:38-50 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:48-60 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:89-101 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:462 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:462-474 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:477-489 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:492-504 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:462` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:604 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:604-615 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:421-431 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 180 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:604` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:431` calls `padding`, `sheet`, `CustomHeaderSettingsView` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:615` 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 (11–12 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/ChatContextCollectors/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.swift:90 — Tool/Sources/ChatContextCollectors/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.swift:90-100 | Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/ActiveDocumentContext.swift:85-96 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/ChatContextCollectors/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.swift:90` 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 (10–11 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/AppActivator/AppActivator.swift:98 — Tool/Sources/AppActivator/AppActivator.swift:98-108 | Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumService.swift:445-454 | Tool/Sources/XcodeInspector/XcodeInspector+TriggerCommand.swift:149-159 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/AppActivator/AppActivator.swift:98` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:778 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:778-788 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:134-143 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:180-190 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift` and `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 129 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:778` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumService.swift:191 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumService.swift:191-200 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:340-349 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumService.swift:191` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift:91 — Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift:91-100 | Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureEnabledProjectListView.swift:129-138 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureDisabledLanguageListView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/FeatureSettings/Suggestion/SuggestionFeatureEnabledProjectListView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) · ×2
  • Swallowed exception (empty catch) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SyntaxHighlighting.swift:303 — 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.
  • Swallowed exception (empty catch) Core/Sources/ChatService/ChatService.swift:112 — 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RequestBody.init (cyclomatic 54) · ×1
  • RequestBody.init (cyclomatic 54) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1049 — RequestBody.init has cyclomatic complexity 54 (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 · Chat.body (cyclomatic 50) · ×1
  • Chat.body (cyclomatic 50) Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Chat.swift:128 — Chat.body has cyclomatic complexity 50 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ChatPanel.body (cyclomatic 47) · ×1
  • ChatPanel.body (cyclomatic 47) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/ChatPanel.swift:96 — ChatPanel.body has cyclomatic complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Widget.body (cyclomatic 38) · ×1
  • Widget.body (cyclomatic 38) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/Widget.swift:129 — Widget.body has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ChatModelEdit.body (cyclomatic 37) · ×1
  • ChatModelEdit.body (cyclomatic 37) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:98 — ChatModelEdit.body has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.yield (cyclomatic 37) · ×1
  • ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.yield (cyclomatic 37) Tool/Sources/ModificationBasic/ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.swift:81 — ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.yield has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). Of this number, 35 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 · PromptToCodeGroup.body (cyclomatic 33) · ×1
  • PromptToCodeGroup.body (cyclomatic 33) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/PromptToCodeGroup.swift:51 — PromptToCodeGroup.body has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · General.body (cyclomatic 31) · ×1
  • General.body (cyclomatic 31) Core/Sources/HostApp/General.swift:56 — General.body has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PromptToCodePanel.body (cyclomatic 31) · ×1
  • PromptToCodePanel.body (cyclomatic 31) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/PromptToCodePanel.swift:110 — PromptToCodePanel.body has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmbeddingModelEdit.body (cyclomatic 30) · ×1
  • EmbeddingModelEdit.body (cyclomatic 30) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift:83 — EmbeddingModelEdit.body has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GUI.body (cyclomatic 30) · ×1
  • GUI.body (cyclomatic 30) Core/Sources/Service/GUI/GraphicalUserInterfaceController.swift:82 — GUI.body has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GitHubCopilotView.body (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • GitHubCopilotView.body (cyclomatic 25) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/GitHubCopilotView.swift:145 — GitHubCopilotView.body has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RequestBody.init (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • RequestBody.init (cyclomatic 25) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:403 — RequestBody.init has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 12 belong to 4 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WidgetWindowsController.generateWidgetLocation (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • WidgetWindowsController.generateWidgetLocation (cyclomatic 23) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift:277 — WidgetWindowsController.generateWidgetLocation has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · XcodeInspector.restart (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • XcodeInspector.restart (cyclomatic 23) Tool/Sources/XcodeInspector/XcodeInspector.swift:231 — XcodeInspector.restart has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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 · ChatGPTService.send (cyclomatic 22) · ×1
  • ChatGPTService.send (cyclomatic 22) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/ChatGPTService.swift:138 — ChatGPTService.send has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TabToAcceptSuggestion.handleTab (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • TabToAcceptSuggestion.handleTab (cyclomatic 21) Core/Sources/KeyBindingManager/TabToAcceptSuggestion.swift:116 — TabToAcceptSuggestion.handleTab has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DependencyUpdater.update (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • DependencyUpdater.update (cyclomatic 21) Core/Sources/Service/DependencyUpdater.swift:9 — DependencyUpdater.update has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · HighlightrThemeManager.theme (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • HighlightrThemeManager.theme (cyclomatic 21) Core/Sources/XcodeThemeController/HighlightrThemeManager.swift:15 — HighlightrThemeManager.theme 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 · CodeiumChatBrowser.body (cyclomatic 21) · ×1
  • CodeiumChatBrowser.body (cyclomatic 21) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/ChatTab/CodeiumChatBrowser.swift:47 — CodeiumChatBrowser.body has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CustomCommandFeature.body (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • CustomCommandFeature.body (cyclomatic 20) Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/CustomCommand.swift:29 — CustomCommandFeature.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 · SimpleModificationAgent.modifyCode (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • SimpleModificationAgent.modifyCode (cyclomatic 20) Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:47 — SimpleModificationAgent.modifyCode has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function items inside it that branch. 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 · RealtimeSuggestionController.handleFocusElementChange (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • RealtimeSuggestionController.handleFocusElementChange (cyclomatic 20) Core/Sources/Service/RealtimeSuggestionController.swift:45 — RealtimeSuggestionController.handleFocusElementChange 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 · CodeDiff.diff (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • CodeDiff.diff (cyclomatic 20) Tool/Sources/CodeDiff/CodeDiff.swift:137 — CodeDiff.diff 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 · MemoryTemplate.defaultTruncateRule (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • MemoryTemplate.defaultTruncateRule (cyclomatic 20) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Memory/TemplateChatGPTMemory.swift:203 — MemoryTemplate.defaultTruncateRule 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 · LegacyChatPluginWrapper.send (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • LegacyChatPluginWrapper.send (cyclomatic 19) Core/Sources/ChatService/AllPlugins.swift:46 — LegacyChatPluginWrapper.send 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 · WidgetWindowsController.updateWindowOpacity (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • WidgetWindowsController.updateWindowOpacity (cyclomatic 19) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift:387 — WidgetWindowsController.updateWindowOpacity 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 · WidgetPanel.body (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • WidgetPanel.body (cyclomatic 19) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/WidgetPanel.swift:45 — WidgetPanel.body 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 · GitHubCopilotChatService.sendMessage (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • GitHubCopilotChatService.sendMessage (cyclomatic 19) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotChatService.swift:17 — GitHubCopilotChatService.sendMessage 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 · PseudoCommandHandler.openChat (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • PseudoCommandHandler.openChat (cyclomatic 18) Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:417 — PseudoCommandHandler.openChat has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 16 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 · ServerNotificationHandler.handleNotification (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • ServerNotificationHandler.handleNotification (cyclomatic 18) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/CopilotLocalProcessServer.swift:309 — ServerNotificationHandler.handleNotification has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CodeHighlighting.convertToCodeLines (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • CodeHighlighting.convertToCodeLines (cyclomatic 18) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SyntaxHighlighting.swift:223 — CodeHighlighting.convertToCodeLines has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 3 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 · ChatModelManagement.body (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • ChatModelManagement.body (cyclomatic 17) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:67 — ChatModelManagement.body has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmbeddingModelManagement.body (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • EmbeddingModelManagement.body (cyclomatic 17) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelManagement.swift:59 — EmbeddingModelManagement.body has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · XcodeThemeController.syncXcodeThemeIfNeeded (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • XcodeThemeController.syncXcodeThemeIfNeeded (cyclomatic 17) Core/Sources/XcodeThemeController/XcodeThemeController.swift:77 — XcodeThemeController.syncXcodeThemeIfNeeded 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 · AXNotificationStream.init (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • AXNotificationStream.init (cyclomatic 17) Tool/Sources/AXNotificationStream/AXNotificationStream.swift:46 — AXNotificationStream.init has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ObjectiveCScopeHierarchySyntaxVisitor.visit (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • ObjectiveCScopeHierarchySyntaxVisitor.visit (cyclomatic 17) Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/ObjectiveC/ObjectiveCScopeHierarchySyntaxVisitor.swift:39 — ObjectiveCScopeHierarchySyntaxVisitor.visit has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GitHubCopilotBaseService.init (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • GitHubCopilotBaseService.init (cyclomatic 17) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:129 — GitHubCopilotBaseService.init has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: GitHubCopilotError.errorDescription (cyclomatic 20) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · OpenAIEmbedding.getLenSafeEmbeddings (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • OpenAIEmbedding.getLenSafeEmbeddings (cyclomatic 17) Tool/Sources/LangChain/Embedding/OpenAIEmbedding.swift:58 — OpenAIEmbedding.getLenSafeEmbeddings has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EditCustomCommand.body (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • EditCustomCommand.body (cyclomatic 16) Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/EditCustomCommand.swift:98 — EditCustomCommand.body has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · XcodeAppInstanceInspector.observeAXNotifications (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • XcodeAppInstanceInspector.observeAXNotifications (cyclomatic 16) Tool/Sources/XcodeInspector/Apps/XcodeAppInstanceInspector.swift:256 — XcodeAppInstanceInspector.observeAXNotifications 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.
D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×1
  • HackComment Core/Sources/HostApp/SharedComponents/EditableText.swift:4 — // Hack to disable smart quotes and dashes in TextEditor — 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RequestBody.init (cognitive 145) · ×1
  • RequestBody.init (cognitive 145) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1049 — RequestBody.init has cognitive complexity 145 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 16 (78 pts), if/else 23 (49 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 3 (6 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 94). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.yield (cognitive 100) · ×1
  • ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.yield (cognitive 100) Tool/Sources/ModificationBasic/ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.swift:81 — ExplanationThenCodeStreamParser.yield has cognitive complexity 100 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (79 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts), boolean chains 9, loops 1 (nesting depth added 62). Of this number, 94 points are the body's own statements and 6 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 · ChatGPTService.send (cognitive 75) · ×1
  • ChatGPTService.send (cognitive 75) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/ChatGPTService.swift:138 — ChatGPTService.send has cognitive complexity 75 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (34 pts), loops 6 (28 pts), match/switch 2 (11 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 57). 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 · ChatPanel.body (cognitive 53) · ×1
  • ChatPanel.body (cognitive 53) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/ChatPanel.swift:96 — ChatPanel.body has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (46 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 23). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CodeDiff.diff (cognitive 50) · ×1
  • CodeDiff.diff (cognitive 50) Tool/Sources/CodeDiff/CodeDiff.swift:137 — CodeDiff.diff has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (40 pts), loops 4 (9 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 31). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChatGPTMemory.streamMessage (cognitive 49) · ×1
  • ChatGPTMemory.streamMessage (cognitive 49) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Memory/ChatGPTMemory.swift:83 — ChatGPTMemory.streamMessage has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (45 pts), loops 1 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 31). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PromptToCodePanel.body (cognitive 42) · ×1
  • PromptToCodePanel.body (cognitive 42) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/PromptToCodePanel.swift:110 — PromptToCodePanel.body has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), error handling 4 (12 pts), loops 2 (8 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 27). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · XcodeInspector.restart (cognitive 42) · ×1
  • XcodeInspector.restart (cognitive 42) Tool/Sources/XcodeInspector/XcodeInspector.swift:231 — XcodeInspector.restart has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (35 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Widget.body (cognitive 41) · ×1
  • Widget.body (cognitive 41) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/Widget.swift:129 — Widget.body has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (25 pts), match/switch 5 (7 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 17). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Chat.body (cognitive 40) · ×1
  • Chat.body (cognitive 40) Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Chat.swift:128 — Chat.body has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (19 pts), loops 6 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 1 (3 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 18). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CodeHighlighting.convertToCodeLines (cognitive 39) · ×1
  • CodeHighlighting.convertToCodeLines (cognitive 39) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SyntaxHighlighting.swift:223 — CodeHighlighting.convertToCodeLines has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (24 pts), loops 5 (11 pts), error handling 1 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 22). Of this number, 36 points are the body's own statements and 3 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 · WidgetWindowsController.generateWidgetLocation (cognitive 37) · ×1
  • WidgetWindowsController.generateWidgetLocation (cognitive 37) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift:277 — WidgetWindowsController.generateWidgetLocation has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 13, if/else 7 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 14). 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 · RealtimeSuggestionController.handleFocusElementChange (cognitive 36) · ×1
  • RealtimeSuggestionController.handleFocusElementChange (cognitive 36) Core/Sources/Service/RealtimeSuggestionController.swift:45 — RealtimeSuggestionController.handleFocusElementChange has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (26 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (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 · SimpleModificationAgent.modifyCode (cognitive 35) · ×1
  • SimpleModificationAgent.modifyCode (cognitive 35) Core/Sources/PromptToCodeService/OpenAIPromptToCodeService.swift:47 — SimpleModificationAgent.modifyCode has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (21 pts), match/switch 4 (6 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), ternaries 3, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 10). Of this number, 29 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function items inside it that branch. 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 · PromptToCodeGroup.body (cognitive 35) · ×1
  • PromptToCodeGroup.body (cognitive 35) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/FeatureReducers/PromptToCodeGroup.swift:51 — PromptToCodeGroup.body has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (21 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 3 (6 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 13). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · XcodeAppInstanceInspector.observeAXNotifications (cognitive 34) · ×1
  • XcodeAppInstanceInspector.observeAXNotifications (cognitive 34) Tool/Sources/XcodeInspector/Apps/XcodeAppInstanceInspector.swift:256 — XcodeAppInstanceInspector.observeAXNotifications has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (28 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 19). 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 · GitHubCopilotChatService.sendMessage (cognitive 33) · ×1
  • GitHubCopilotChatService.sendMessage (cognitive 33) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotChatService.swift:17 — GitHubCopilotChatService.sendMessage has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (24 pts), error handling 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GUI.body (cognitive 32) · ×1
  • GUI.body (cognitive 32) Core/Sources/Service/GUI/GraphicalUserInterfaceController.swift:82 — GUI.body has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (23 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (2 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AppDelegate.menuWillOpen (cognitive 32) · ×1
  • AppDelegate.menuWillOpen (cognitive 32) ExtensionService/AppDelegate+Menu.swift:128 — AppDelegate.menuWillOpen has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), loops 3 (9 pts), ternaries 3 (8 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 16). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WidgetWindowsController.updateWindowOpacity (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • WidgetWindowsController.updateWindowOpacity (cognitive 31) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift:387 — WidgetWindowsController.updateWindowOpacity has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (16 pts), ternaries 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 5 (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 · General.body (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • General.body (cognitive 30) Core/Sources/HostApp/General.swift:56 — General.body has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: error handling 8 (17 pts), if/else 5 (10 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 15). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · OpenAIEmbedding.getLenSafeEmbeddings (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • OpenAIEmbedding.getLenSafeEmbeddings (cognitive 30) Tool/Sources/LangChain/Embedding/OpenAIEmbedding.swift:58 — OpenAIEmbedding.getLenSafeEmbeddings has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), loops 6 (8 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). 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 · LegacyChatPluginWrapper.send (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • LegacyChatPluginWrapper.send (cognitive 29) Core/Sources/ChatService/AllPlugins.swift:46 — LegacyChatPluginWrapper.send has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), match/switch 3 (11 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AppInstanceInspector.triggerMenuItem (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • AppInstanceInspector.triggerMenuItem (cognitive 29) Tool/Sources/XcodeInspector/XcodeInspector+TriggerCommand.swift:23 — AppInstanceInspector.triggerMenuItem has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (24 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChatModelEdit.body (cognitive 28) · ×1
  • ChatModelEdit.body (cognitive 28) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEdit.swift:98 — ChatModelEdit.body has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (21 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 13). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RequestBody.init (cognitive 28) · ×1
  • RequestBody.init (cognitive 28) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:403 — RequestBody.init has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), match/switch 4 (9 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 7). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 4 function items inside it that branch. 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 · SuggestionInjector.acceptSuggestions (cognitive 28) · ×1
  • SuggestionInjector.acceptSuggestions (cognitive 28) Tool/Sources/SuggestionInjector/SuggestionInjector.swift:90 — SuggestionInjector.acceptSuggestions has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (22 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TabToAcceptSuggestion.handleTab (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • TabToAcceptSuggestion.handleTab (cognitive 27) Core/Sources/KeyBindingManager/TabToAcceptSuggestion.swift:116 — TabToAcceptSuggestion.handleTab has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (24 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PseudoCommandHandler.openChat (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • PseudoCommandHandler.openChat (cognitive 27) Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:417 — PseudoCommandHandler.openChat has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 12). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function item inside it that branches. The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HorizontalMovable.framesForWindows (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • HorizontalMovable.framesForWindows (cognitive 27) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetPositionStrategy.swift:104 — HorizontalMovable.framesForWindows has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), ternaries 5 (13 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MemoryTemplate.defaultTruncateRule (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • MemoryTemplate.defaultTruncateRule (cognitive 27) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Memory/TemplateChatGPTMemory.swift:203 — MemoryTemplate.defaultTruncateRule has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (22 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CustomCommandFeature.body (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • CustomCommandFeature.body (cognitive 25) Core/Sources/HostApp/CustomCommandSettings/CustomCommand.swift:29 — CustomCommandFeature.body has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 11). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PseudoCommandHandler.acceptModification (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • PseudoCommandHandler.acceptModification (cognitive 24) Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:208 — PseudoCommandHandler.acceptModification has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), error handling 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · OverlayWindowController.handleOverlayStatusChange (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • OverlayWindowController.handleOverlayStatusChange (cognitive 24) OverlayWindow/Sources/OverlayWindow/OverlayWindowController.swift:156 — OverlayWindowController.handleOverlayStatusChange has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), loops 5 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TextSplitter.mergeSplits (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • TextSplitter.mergeSplits (cognitive 24) Tool/Sources/LangChain/DocumentTransformer/TextSplitter.swift:112 — TextSplitter.mergeSplits has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 11). Of this number, 22 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 · WidgetWindowsController.adjustChatPanelWindowLevel (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • WidgetWindowsController.adjustChatPanelWindowLevel (cognitive 23) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift:543 — WidgetWindowsController.adjustChatPanelWindowLevel has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (17 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 6). 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 · TerminalChatPlugin.send (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • TerminalChatPlugin.send (cognitive 22) Core/Sources/LegacyChatPlugin/TerminalChatPlugin.swift:20 — TerminalChatPlugin.send has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), error handling 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RequestBody.joinMessageContent (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • RequestBody.joinMessageContent (cognitive 22) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1004 — RequestBody.joinMessageContent has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ServerNotificationHandler.handleNotification (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • ServerNotificationHandler.handleNotification (cognitive 22) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/CopilotLocalProcessServer.swift:309 — ServerNotificationHandler.handleNotification has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GitHubCopilotBaseService.init (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • GitHubCopilotBaseService.init (cognitive 22) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:129 — GitHubCopilotBaseService.init has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (9 pts), ternaries 5 (8 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChatGPTService.sendRequest (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • ChatGPTService.sendRequest (cognitive 22) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/ChatGPTService.swift:294 — ChatGPTService.sendRequest has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (17 pts), error handling 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Terminal.streamCommand (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • Terminal.streamCommand (cognitive 21) Tool/Sources/Terminal/Terminal.swift:51 — Terminal.streamCommand has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), boolean chains 6, error handling 1, loops 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 · DependencyUpdater.update (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • DependencyUpdater.update (cognitive 20) Core/Sources/Service/DependencyUpdater.swift:9 — DependencyUpdater.update has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (10 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GlobalShortcutManager.start (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • GlobalShortcutManager.start (cognitive 20) Core/Sources/Service/GlobalShortcutManager.swift:20 — GlobalShortcutManager.start has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PseudoCommandHandler.acceptActiveSuggestionLineInGroup (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • PseudoCommandHandler.acceptActiveSuggestionLineInGroup (cognitive 20) Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:285 — PseudoCommandHandler.acceptActiveSuggestionLineInGroup has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), error handling 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (PseudoCommandHandler.acceptSuggestion) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PseudoCommandHandler.acceptSuggestion (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • PseudoCommandHandler.acceptSuggestion (cognitive 20) Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:347 — PseudoCommandHandler.acceptSuggestion has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), error handling 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (PseudoCommandHandler.acceptActiveSuggestionLineInGroup) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HighlightrThemeManager.theme (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • HighlightrThemeManager.theme (cognitive 20) Core/Sources/XcodeThemeController/HighlightrThemeManager.swift:15 — HighlightrThemeManager.theme has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · XcodeThemeController.syncXcodeThemeIfNeeded (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • XcodeThemeController.syncXcodeThemeIfNeeded (cognitive 20) Core/Sources/XcodeThemeController/XcodeThemeController.swift:77 — XcodeThemeController.syncXcodeThemeIfNeeded has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (13 pts), boolean chains 4, error handling 1 (2 pts), ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 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 · CodeiumLanguageServer.sendRequest (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • CodeiumLanguageServer.sendRequest (cognitive 20) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumLanguageServer.swift:164 — CodeiumLanguageServer.sendRequest has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), error handling 2 (4 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 · GitHubCopilotChatService.convertHistory (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • GitHubCopilotChatService.convertHistory (cognitive 20) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotChatService.swift:158 — GitHubCopilotChatService.convertHistory has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), 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 · XcodeInspector.setActiveXcode (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • XcodeInspector.setActiveXcode (cognitive 20) Tool/Sources/XcodeInspector/XcodeInspector.swift:374 — XcodeInspector.setActiveXcode has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EmbeddingModelEdit.body (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • EmbeddingModelEdit.body (cognitive 19) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEdit.swift:83 — EmbeddingModelEdit.body has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GitHubCopilotService.getCompletions (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • GitHubCopilotService.getCompletions (cognitive 19) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:449 — GitHubCopilotService.getCompletions has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), error handling 6, match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 19 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function item inside it that branches (sendRequest). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RelevantInformationExtractionChain.callLogic (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • RelevantInformationExtractionChain.callLogic (cognitive 19) Tool/Sources/LangChain/Chains/RelevantInformationExtractionChain.swift:97 — RelevantInformationExtractionChain.callLogic has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), error handling 2 (6 pts), loops 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). Of this number, 10 points are the body's own statements and 9 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 · BingSearchResultParser.parse (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • BingSearchResultParser.parse (cognitive 19) Tool/Sources/WebSearchService/SearchServices/HeadlessBrowserSearchService.swift:251 — BingSearchResultParser.parse has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (12 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WorkspaceXcodeWindowInspector.extractProjectURL (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • WorkspaceXcodeWindowInspector.extractProjectURL (cognitive 19) Tool/Sources/XcodeInspector/XcodeWindowInspector.swift:141 — WorkspaceXcodeWindowInspector.extractProjectURL has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 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 · PseudoCommandHandler.generateRealtimeSuggestions (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • PseudoCommandHandler.generateRealtimeSuggestions (cognitive 18) Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:64 — PseudoCommandHandler.generateRealtimeSuggestions has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), error handling 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). 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 · NearbyTextCursor.framesForSuggestionWindow (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • NearbyTextCursor.framesForSuggestionWindow (cognitive 18) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetPositionStrategy.swift:291 — NearbyTextCursor.framesForSuggestionWindow has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (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 · WidgetWindowsController.observe (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • WidgetWindowsController.observe (cognitive 18) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetWindowsController.swift:205 — WidgetWindowsController.observe has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.extractSystemPrompt (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.extractSystemPrompt (cognitive 18) Tool/Sources/ChatContextCollectors/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector/ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.swift:106 — ActiveDocumentChatContextCollector.extractSystemPrompt has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 6 (11 pts), boolean chains 5, if/else 2 (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 · CodeiumChatBrowser.body (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • CodeiumChatBrowser.body (cognitive 18) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/ChatTab/CodeiumChatBrowser.swift:47 — CodeiumChatBrowser.body has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter.split (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter.split (cognitive 18) Tool/Sources/LangChain/DocumentTransformer/RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter.swift:58 — RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter.split has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GoogleAIChatCompletionsService.convertMessages (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • GoogleAIChatCompletionsService.convertMessages (cognitive 18) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/GoogleAIChatCompletionsService.swift:134 — GoogleAIChatCompletionsService.convertMessages has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 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 · ShortcutChatPlugin.sendForComplicatedResponse (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ShortcutChatPlugin.sendForComplicatedResponse (cognitive 17) ChatPlugins/Sources/ShortcutChatPlugin/ShortcutChatPlugin.swift:50 — ShortcutChatPlugin.sendForComplicatedResponse has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), error handling 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChatPluginController.handleContent (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ChatPluginController.handleContent (cognitive 17) Core/Sources/ChatService/ChatPluginController.swift:29 — ChatPluginController.handleContent has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 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 · ScheduledCleaner.cleanUp (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ScheduledCleaner.cleanUp (cognitive 17) Core/Sources/Service/ScheduledCleaner.swift:33 — ScheduledCleaner.cleanUp has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CodeiumLanguageServer.start (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • CodeiumLanguageServer.start (cognitive 17) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumLanguageServer.swift:89 — CodeiumLanguageServer.start has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 9). Of this number, 10 points are the body's own statements and 7 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 · SourceEditor.observeAXNotifications (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • SourceEditor.observeAXNotifications (cognitive 17) Tool/Sources/XcodeInspector/SourceEditor.swift:83 — SourceEditor.observeAXNotifications has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ChatModelManagement.body (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • ChatModelManagement.body (cognitive 16) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:67 — ChatModelManagement.body has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EmbeddingModelManagement.body (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • EmbeddingModelManagement.body (cognitive 16) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelManagement.swift:59 — EmbeddingModelManagement.body has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WidgetAnimatedCapsule.updateBreathingAnimation (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • WidgetAnimatedCapsule.updateBreathingAnimation (cognitive 16) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetView.swift:119 — WidgetAnimatedCapsule.updateBreathingAnimation has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.body (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.body (cognitive 16) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:221 — CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.body has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AXUIElement.child (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • AXUIElement.child (cognitive 16) Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:220 — AXUIElement.child has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (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 · TextSplitter.split (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • TextSplitter.split (cognitive 16) Tool/Sources/LangChain/DocumentTransformer/TextSplitter.swift:179 — TextSplitter.split has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AutoManagedChatGPTMemory.generateRetrievedContentMessage (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • AutoManagedChatGPTMemory.generateRetrievedContentMessage (cognitive 16) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Memory/AutoManagedChatGPTMemory.swift:268 — AutoManagedChatGPTMemory.generateRetrievedContentMessage has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 3). None of this is in the body itself: all 16 points belong to 3 function items inside it that branch (buildMessageThatFits, buildMessage, buildMessageThatFits::checkValid). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.
D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×1
  • FunctionTooLong: PromptToCodePanelView.swift.top-level code Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1083 — FunctionTooLong — top-level code runs 152 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 52 over it, 1.52× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1
  • ClassTooLong: PseudoCommandHandler Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:30 — ClassTooLong — 432 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 23 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.08× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling clique · ×1
  • Change coupling clique: SuggestionCommandHandler.swift, SourceEditorExtension.swift, XPCServiceProtocol.swift Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/SuggestionCommandHandler.swift — 3 files — `Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/SuggestionCommandHandler.swift`, `EditorExtension/SourceEditorExtension.swift`, `Tool/Sources/XPCShared/XPCServiceProtocol.swift` — all change together with no explicit dependency: a fully-connected co-change clique, not 3 separate couplings. They share one concern (thin parallel siblings over a common abstraction), so extract the shared part into ONE unit and the whole clique's coupling clears at once — you do not need to break each pair individually.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change-coupling hub · ×1
  • Change-coupling hub: ChatGPTService.swift → AskChatGPT.swift, OpenAIChat.swift, GoogleAIChatCompletionsService.swift, Models.swift Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/ChatGPTService.swift — `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/ChatGPTService.swift` changes together with 4 other files — `Core/Sources/LegacyChatPlugin/AskChatGPT.swift`, `Tool/Sources/LangChain/ChatModel/OpenAIChat.swift`, `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/GoogleAIChatCompletionsService.swift`, `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Models.swift` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 4 separate couplings, not 4 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 4.
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (58 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member pair (58 shared lines) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:11 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:11-94 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:10-70 — These two members are variants of one another: 58 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (32 shared lines) · ×1
  • Near-duplicate member pair (32 shared lines) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:225 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/ClaudeChatCompletionsService.swift:225-290 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:636-697 — These two members are variants of one another: 32 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (57 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (57 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagementView.swift:27 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagementView.swift:27-83 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/SharedModelManagement/AIModelManagementVIew.swift:195-251 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagementView.swift:27` 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 (55 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (55 lines × 2) Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:286 — Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:286-340 | Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:348-402 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:286` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (41 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (41 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:74 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:74-114 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelManagement.swift:66-106 — `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelManagement.swift` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 68 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelManagement.swift:74` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (31–32 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (31–32 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:367 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:367-397 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:400-431 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:367` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:765 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:765-796 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:167-198 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift` and `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 129 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (30 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (30 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/AppActivator/AppActivator.swift:93 — Tool/Sources/AppActivator/AppActivator.swift:93-122 | Tool/Sources/XcodeInspector/XcodeInspector+TriggerCommand.swift:144-173 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28–29 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (28–29 lines × 2) Core/Sources/Service/DependencyUpdater.swift:14 — Core/Sources/Service/DependencyUpdater.swift:14-42 | Core/Sources/Service/DependencyUpdater.swift:47-74 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/Service/DependencyUpdater.swift:14` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 3) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1115 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1115-1142 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1182-1209 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1237-1264 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1115` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25–26 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (25–26 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetPositionStrategy.swift:168 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetPositionStrategy.swift:168-193 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetPositionStrategy.swift:232-256 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/WidgetPositionStrategy.swift:168` 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:90 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:90-113 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotInstallationManager.swift:45-68 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift` and `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotInstallationManager.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 64 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:90` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:72 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:72-94 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:48-70 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 180 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:72` 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 (21–23 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (21–23 lines × 2) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:61 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:61-83 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:136-156 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/CodeBlockSuggestionPanelView.swift:61` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:515 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:515-536 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift:429-450 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift` and `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncDiffCodeBlock.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 63 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:515` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 3) Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:235 — Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:235-255 | Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:307-327 | Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:369-389 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:235` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:67 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:67-87 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/GitHubCopilotView.swift:55-75 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 4) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:62 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:62-80 | Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:85-103 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotSuggestionService.swift:64-82 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotSuggestionService.swift:87-105 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift` and `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/Services/GitHubCopilotSuggestionService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumSuggestionService.swift:62` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:744 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:744-762 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIEmbeddingService.swift:107-125 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:146-164 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift` and `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 129 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:744` 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 (19 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:256 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:256-274 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:397-415 — 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 after the matched lines, `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:417` calls `Button`, `toggle` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:276` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 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 (17–19 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17–19 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/ObjectiveC/ObjectiveCCodeFinder.swift:188 — Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/ObjectiveC/ObjectiveCCodeFinder.swift:188-206 | Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/ObjectiveC/ObjectiveCCodeFinder.swift:218-234 — 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 `Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/ObjectiveC/ObjectiveCCodeFinder.swift:188` 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 3) Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:217 — Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:217-234 | Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:290-306 | Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:352-368 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:290` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SubSection.swift:78 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SubSection.swift:78-95 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SubSection.swift:97-114 — 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 `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SubSection.swift:78` 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 (13–17 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13–17 lines × 4) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:327 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:327-339 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:457-473 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:531-544 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift:249-261 — before extracting anything, compare `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/EmbeddingModelManagement/EmbeddingModelEditView.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 180 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:327` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:257 — Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:257-273 | Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:329-345 | Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:391-407 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/Service/SuggestionCommandHandler/PseudoCommandHandler.swift:257` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SubSection.swift:78 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SubSection.swift:78-93 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SubSection.swift:97-112 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SubSection.swift:116-131 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/SubSection.swift:78` 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 (15–16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:159 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:159-173 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotInstallationManager.swift:115-130 — before extracting anything, compare `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift` and `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotInstallationManager.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 64 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/LanguageServer/CodeiumInstallationManager.swift:159` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–15 lines × 2) Core/Sources/Service/RealtimeSuggestionController.swift:75 — Core/Sources/Service/RealtimeSuggestionController.swift:75-86 | Core/Sources/Service/RealtimeSuggestionController.swift:94-108 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/Service/RealtimeSuggestionController.swift:75` 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 (11–13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumService.swift:177 — Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumService.swift:177-189 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotService.swift:328-338 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/CodeiumService/Services/CodeiumService.swift:177` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1083 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1083-1094 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1165-1176 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1220-1231 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1083` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1096` calls `init` and `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1178` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 3) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1097 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1097-1107 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1177-1188 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1232-1243 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1097` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/EmbeddingService.swift:13 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/EmbeddingService.swift:13-22 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/EmbeddingService.swift:49-58 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/EmbeddingService.swift:85-94 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/EmbeddingService.swift:13` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 7) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7–9 lines × 7) Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift:76 — Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift:76-84 | Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift:89-97 | Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift:102-110 | Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift:115-123 | Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift:126-132 | Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift:140-148 | Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift:153-161 — all 7 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/FocusedCodeFinder/Swift/SwiftFocusedCodeFinder.swift:126` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1154 — Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1154-1162 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1188-1196 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1212-1220 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIChatCompletionsService.swift:1154` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/XPCShared/XPCExtensionService.swift:242 — Tool/Sources/XPCShared/XPCExtensionService.swift:242-249 | Tool/Sources/XPCShared/XPCExtensionService.swift:269-277 — 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 `Tool/Sources/XPCShared/XPCExtensionService.swift:242` 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.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:265 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:265-272 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:248-255 | Core/Sources/HostApp/SharedComponents/EditableText.swift:51-58 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/ChatModelManagement/ChatModelEditView.swift:265` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:258` calls `Spacer` and `Core/Sources/HostApp/SharedComponents/EditableText.swift:60` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:491 — Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:491-498 | Tool/Sources/SharedUIComponents/AsyncCodeBlock.swift:506-512 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/GitHubCopilotExtension.swift:279 — Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/GitHubCopilotExtension.swift:279-285 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/GitHubCopilotChatCompletionsService.swift:101-107 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/GitHubCopilotEmbeddingService.swift:61-67 | Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/APIs/OpenAIResponsesRawService.swift:203-209 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 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 4 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1157 — Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1157-1163 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1212-1218 | Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1269-1275 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Core/Sources/SuggestionWidget/SuggestionPanelContent/PromptToCodePanelView.swift:1157` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (3–5 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (3–5 lines × 4) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:234 — Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:234-238 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:250-254 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:300-302 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:316-320 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:234` 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:302` calls `JSONDecoder`, `decode`, `hash` and `Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:238` 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 (14 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:101 — Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:101-114 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/CodeiumView.swift:116-129 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/GitHubCopilotView.swift:106-119 | Core/Sources/HostApp/AccountSettings/GitHubCopilotView.swift:121-134 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 6) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 6) EditorExtension/GetSuggestionsCommand.swift:9 — EditorExtension/GetSuggestionsCommand.swift:9-18 | EditorExtension/NextSuggestionCommand.swift:9-18 | EditorExtension/PreviousSuggestionCommand.swift:9-18 | EditorExtension/PromptToCodeCommand.swift:9-18 | EditorExtension/RealtimeSuggestionCommand.swift:9-18 | EditorExtension/RejectSuggestionCommand.swift:9-18 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 6 call sites, so a change lands once.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:400 — Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:400-404 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:425-429 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:444-448 | Tool/Sources/GitHubCopilotService/LanguageServer/GitHubCopilotRequest.swift:461-465 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D5 · Coupling · Unstable project ChatGPTChatTab · ×1
  • Unstable project ChatGPTChatTab — ChatGPTChatTab has instability 0.86 with 1 dependents.
D5 · Coupling · Unstable project CodeiumService · ×1
  • Unstable project CodeiumService — CodeiumService has instability 0.89 with 1 dependents.
P1 · CI/CD gates · No CI gate on code changes · ×1
  • No CI gate on code changes — A workflow is configured, but the repository's only workflow is `REDACTED`, which neither runs on a code change (no `push` or `pull_request` trigger) nor checks the code out — so nothing here builds or tests a change before it merges. This is automation for the repository's ISSUES AND HOUSEKEEPING, not a gate on its code: a pull request can land without anything having compiled or run it. The rows about missing build and test steps are deliberately not reported beside this one, because there is no pipeline for them to be missing from — adding the gate is one action, not three.
P2 · Observability · No structured logging · ×1
  • No structured logging — No logging or diagnostics emission found. This repository ships a binary its users launch rather than a service you operate, so there is no operator to page — but when a run fails on a user's machine, neither they nor you have anything to read.
Minor — 25 finding(s)
X7 · Silent fallback defaults · Silent fallback default in catch · ×16
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:19 — `identifier` turns every thrown error into `""` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:23 — `value` turns every thrown error into `""` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:31 — `title` turns every thrown error into `""` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:35 — `role` turns every thrown error into `""` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:39 — `doubleValue` turns every thrown error into `0.0` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:48 — `description` turns every thrown error into `""` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:53 — `roleDescription` turns every thrown error into `""` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:57 — `label` turns every thrown error into `""` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:155 — `sharedFocusElements` turns every thrown error into `[]` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:163 — `windows` turns every thrown error into `[]` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:201 — `rows` turns every thrown error into `[]` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:209 — `children` turns every thrown error into `[]` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/AXExtension/AXUIElement.swift:217 — `visibleChildren` turns every thrown error into `[]` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/ChatContextCollector/ChatContextCollector.swift:93 — `parseScopes` turns every thrown error into `[]` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/GitIgnoreCheck/GitIgnoreCheck.swift:87 — `checkIfGitIgnored` turns every thrown error into `[]` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
  • Silent fallback default in catch Tool/Sources/OpenAIService/Configuration/ChatGPTConfiguration.swift:123 — `apiKey` turns every thrown error into `""` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or let it propagate (`throws`). If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment at the `catch`, `guard` or `??`, or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
  • Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 2 of 5 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 2.0/10. The most over is `Tool` (29277 LoC, 864 module-visible types across 70 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.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
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) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 798 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 — 37 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×37
  • Outdated: aexml — `aexml` is resolved at 4.7.0, but 4.7.3 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/tadija/AEXML.git within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update aexml` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: cgeventoverride — `cgeventoverride` is resolved at 1.2.3, but 1.3.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/intitni/CGEventOverride within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update cgeventoverride` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: combine-schedulers — `combine-schedulers` is resolved at 1.0.3, but 1.2.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/combine-schedulers within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update combine-schedulers` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: combine-schedulers — `combine-schedulers` is resolved at 0.10.0, but 0.11.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/combine-schedulers within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update combine-schedulers` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: highlightr — `highlightr` is resolved at 2.1.2, but 2.3.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/raspu/Highlightr within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update highlightr` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: jsonrpc — `jsonrpc` is resolved at 0.6.0, but 0.9.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/ChimeHQ/JSONRPC within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update jsonrpc` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: languageclient — `languageclient` is resolved at 0.3.1, but 0.8.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/ChimeHQ/LanguageClient within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update languageclient` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: languageserverprotocol — `languageserverprotocol` is resolved at 0.8.0, but 0.14.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/ChimeHQ/LanguageServerProtocol within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update languageserverprotocol` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: sourcekitten — `sourcekitten` is resolved at 0.37.0, but 0.39.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/jpsim/SourceKitten within the same major. SwiftPM resolves from git tags, and a `from:` requirement admits every release below the next major — so `swift package update sourcekitten` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: sparkle — `sparkle` is resolved at 2.9.2, 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 1.2.2, but 1.8.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-argument-parser.git 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: swift-async-algorithms — `swift-async-algorithms` is resolved at 1.0.4, but 1.1.7 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-async-algorithms 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-async-algorithms` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-case-paths — `swift-case-paths` is resolved at 1.7.0, but 1.10.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-case-paths 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-case-paths` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-clocks — `swift-clocks` is resolved at 1.0.6, but 1.1.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-clocks 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-clocks` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-clocks — `swift-clocks` is resolved at 0.3.0, but 0.4.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-clocks 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-clocks` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-cmark — `swift-cmark` is resolved at 0.6.0, but 0.9.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-cmark 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-cmark` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-collections — `swift-collections` is resolved at 1.1.4, but 1.7.4 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-collections 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-collections` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-collections — `swift-collections` is resolved at 1.0.4, but 1.7.4 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/apple/swift-collections.git 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-collections` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-composable-architecture — `swift-composable-architecture` is resolved at 1.16.1, but 1.26.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-composable-architecture 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-composable-architecture` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-composable-architecture — `swift-composable-architecture` is resolved at 0.55.0, but 0.59.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-composable-architecture 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-composable-architecture` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-concurrency-extras — `swift-concurrency-extras` is resolved at 1.3.1, but 1.4.3 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-concurrency-extras 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-concurrency-extras` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-custom-dump — `swift-custom-dump` is resolved at 1.3.3, but 1.7.3 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-custom-dump 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-custom-dump` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-custom-dump — `swift-custom-dump` is resolved at 0.11.0, but 0.11.2 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-custom-dump 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-custom-dump` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-dependencies — `swift-dependencies` is resolved at 0.5.1, but 0.6.0 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-dependencies 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-dependencies` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • Outdated: swift-dependencies — `swift-dependencies` is resolved at 1.9.2, but 1.17.1 is the newest release tagged on https://github.com/pointfreeco/swift-dependencies 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-dependencies` reaches this one with no change to Package.swift.
  • + 12 more in this group — see findings.md.

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-e54b3de3ca3d44fdb3d3ee0113960189/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .1artifacts/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-e54b3de3ca3d44fdb3d3ee0113960189/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/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 .1artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .0artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 58 file(s) — `CommunicationBridge/ServiceDelegate.swift`, `Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/ChatPanel.swift`, `Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Views/BotMessage.swift`, `Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Views/FunctionMessage.swift`, `Core/Sources/ChatGPTChatTab/Views/UserMessage.swift`, … (+53 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .0artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a1779a-42d2-7ff8-be93-16da952b22bf · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 9 · Warnings: 368 · Recommendations: 25 · Info: 37 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 26-10-2026 @ 09:46 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md