Public report — fzf, published 6 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
205findings with an exact file:lineof 215 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
25/95dimensions across the health lenses24272 LoC — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
junegunn/fzf is sound in substance but carries real gaps (61%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Architecture (100%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.
The area that most needs attention is Code Health (56%) — changes there are slower and more error-prone. Maturity (57%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation); 8 Hotspot finding(s) (Churn × Complexity Hotspots); 'Testing' section to the root README (Documentation (README)).
For scale: Medium (~24,272 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.3 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
0.8× (at 61% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€40,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Code Health at 56% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 4.9–29.4 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~23,149 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–7 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 8–19% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.
Evidence: D15 churn: 5,708 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~23,149/year · D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 4.6/10 ⇒ a 8–19% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Low effort ⇒ about 1–3 engineer-day(s)
→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 7 months.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Code Health at 56%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Code Health first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 4.6/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 8–19% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 4.6/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
6 modules, 4 dependencies — every dependency points down the layering, so there are no cycles. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
At a glance — Code Health · 56% · Adequate · gated by D1, D2
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A03:2021 — Injection
28
High / Critical
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration
4
High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
3
Medium
Roadmap
Begin by documenting significant architectural decisions in a central location to establish clear context and consequences. Next, address the eight high-risk code hotspots, starting with terminal.go, options.go, and light.go to reduce complexity and churn. Then, update the root README to include a testing section that explains how to run the test suite. Finally, mitigate bus factor risks by resolving the single off-boarding risk, and ensure deployment safety by confirming required reviewers are attached or using draft releases to prevent bad builds from reaching users.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
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. 23 of 25 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — 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 — 25 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 205 of 215 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
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").
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
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.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
58 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Terminal.Loop at 747. A further 2 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 fzf.isExecuteAction at 69 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
+ 53 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Terminal.Loop (cyclomatic 747) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with terminal.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 fzf.parseOptions (cyclomatic 372) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with options.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 LightRenderer.escSequence (cyclomatic 189) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with light.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.
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.
+ 79 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Terminal.Loop (cognitive 1521) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with terminal.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 LightRenderer.escSequence (cognitive 481) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with light.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 fzf.parseOptions (cognitive 455) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with options.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 7 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with terminal.go, options.go, tui.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with light.go (2), terminal.go, tcell.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
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.
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.
Top hotspots: src/terminal.go (23×747=17181); src/options.go (10×372=3720); src/tui/light.go (6×189=1134)
Hotspot: src/terminal.go · ×8src/terminal.go
What to do
Resolve the 8 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with terminal.go, options.go, light.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The fzf project has excellent documentation: a single README with a prominent branding banner and links to sponsors, merch, and release status, plus a detailed table of contents for the architecture/Docs markdown files. The README is an interactive showcase (fzf-preview.png) showing how it works across use cases like file selection, history browsing, previewing data, and custom menus, followed by a clipped highlights section listing Portable, Fast, Programmable, and then a full outline that every named section exists in the visible text.
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The fzf project has excellent documentation: a single README with a prominent branding banner and links to sponsors, merch, and release status, plus a detailed table of contents for the architecture/Docs markdown files. The README is an interactive showcase (fzf-preview.png) showing how it works across use cases like file selection, history browsing, previewing data, and custom menus, followed by a clipped highlights section listing Portable, Fast, Programmable, and then a full outline that every named section exists in the visible text.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
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).
High: dependabot-missing-cooldown · ×17.github/dependabot.yml:3detected by semgrep finding
Low: use-of-unsafe-block · ×11src/functions.go:30detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 17 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with codeql-analysis.yml (4), release.yml (4), depsreview.yaml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 issue-level).
Resolve the 11 Low finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with chars.go (6), result_x86.go (3), functions.go (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
High IaC: DS-0002 · ×2Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Medium IaC: DS-0013 · ×2Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
What to do
Resolve the 2 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.
Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.
What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — read natively from whatever lockfile the repository ships (Cargo, npm, Go, Python, Maven, RubyGems, …). D33 and D30 add ecosystem-specific scanners on top for npm and .NET.
Method: Multi-ecosystem dependency-CVE scan via osv-scanner --recursive (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively across ecosystems: npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven/Gradle pom.xml/gradle.lockfile, PyPI requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock, Composer composer.lock, RubyGems Gemfile.lock, Hex mix.lock, pub pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable only when the repo declares no supported non-.NET dependency lockfile (a NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain); coverage needs a resolved lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
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.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
The release job declares an environment, but its protection rules are not visible from the repository — confirm required reviewers are attached, or publish as a draft release so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
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.
What to do
Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 70 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set 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 singleton implementations detected
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository 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
AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository 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
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository 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
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — 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.
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.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention 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 retention 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.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights 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 data-subject rights 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.
D10 Test Quality — ~12515 lines of test source are present (.go, .rb) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Go module (go.mod/go.sum) and a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems)), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.go) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. 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 — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Go module (go.mod/go.sum) and a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
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.
D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is mostly .go, which this pass does not read, so cohesion was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.go, .rb) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (1 of 2 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 4 value object(s)
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
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, 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'.
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
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.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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
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.
High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:3— This Dependabot configuration does not set a cooldown period. Newly published packages can be malicious or unstable. Add a `cooldown` block with `default-days: 7` to each `package-ecosystem` entry under `updates` to wait 7 days before proposing updates to newly published package versions. Reference: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/dependabot/dependabot-version-updates/configuration-options-for-the-dependabot.yml-file#cooldown. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule reporting a POLICY that is absent or weaker than its recommendation, not an exploitable defect. Confirm whether the current setting is a deliberate decision for this repository — and apply the change where it is not; where it is (a policy your release process already enforces elsewhere, or one this repository has consciously opted out of), record the decision and leave the configuration as it is. This configuration file has 2 such entries; one cooldown decision clears them all — reported once.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml:30— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml:36— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: github/codeql-action/init@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `github/codeql-action/init@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/github/codeql-action/commits/v4 --jq .sha`. `github/codeql-action/init` is hosted INSIDE the `github/codeql-action` repository (a subdirectory action or a reusable workflow), so the SHA to pin is that repository's commit — keep the full `github/codeql-action/init` path in `uses:` and query only `github/codeql-action`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml:41— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: github/codeql-action/autobuild@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `github/codeql-action/autobuild@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/github/codeql-action/commits/v4 --jq .sha`. `github/codeql-action/autobuild` is hosted INSIDE the `github/codeql-action` repository (a subdirectory action or a reusable workflow), so the SHA to pin is that repository's commit — keep the full `github/codeql-action/autobuild` path in `uses:` and query only `github/codeql-action`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml:44— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: github/codeql-action/analyze@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `github/codeql-action/analyze@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/github/codeql-action/commits/v4 --jq .sha`. `github/codeql-action/analyze` is hosted INSIDE the `github/codeql-action` repository (a subdirectory action or a reusable workflow), so the SHA to pin is that repository's commit — keep the full `github/codeql-action/analyze` path in `uses:` and query only `github/codeql-action`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/depsreview.yaml:12— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/depsreview.yaml:14— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/dependency-review-action@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/dependency-review-action@v5`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/dependency-review-action/commits/v5 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/labeler.yml:15— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/labeler@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/labeler@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/labeler/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/linux.yml:21— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/linux.yml:26— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-go@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-go@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-go/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/macos.yml:18— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/macos.yml:23— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-go@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-go@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-go/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/release.yml:22— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/release.yml:26— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-go@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-go@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-go/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/release.yml:32— Using variable interpolation `${{...}}` with `github` context data in a `run:` step could allow an attacker to inject their own code into the runner. This would allow them to steal secrets and code. `github` context data can have arbitrary user input and should be treated as untrusted. Instead, use an intermediate environment variable with `env:` to store the data and use the environment variable in the `run:` script. Reference it as a shell VARIABLE rather than a `${{ }}` interpolation, using your shell's own syntax (`"$ENVVAR"` in bash, `$env:ENVVAR` in PowerShell), so the value is passed as data and never re-expanded as code.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/release.yml:63— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: goreleaser/goreleaser-action@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `goreleaser/goreleaser-action@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/goreleaser/goreleaser-action/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/typos.yml:9— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile— Image user should not be 'root' A container that starts as root runs your process with root's capabilities inside the namespace, so a compromise of the process starts from there. The step: create an unprivileged account in the image (`RUN adduser --system --no-create-home app`), give it ownership of the paths the process writes at runtime (`COPY --chown=` on those layers, or a `RUN chown -R`), and end the final stage with `USER app` so it is the default at start. Build stages that only compile can stay root; it is the stage that RUNS that needs the account. If the process genuinely requires root — it manages the container runtime, ptraces another process or opens raw devices — say so here rather than making a change that breaks it.
High IaC: DS-0029 Dockerfile— 'apt-get' missing '--no-install-recommends'
Hotspot: src/terminal.go src/terminal.go— src/terminal.go changed 23 times in last 90 days, max complexity 747. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 21 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: src/options.go src/options.go— src/options.go changed 10 times in last 90 days, max complexity 372. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: src/tui/light.go src/tui/light.go— src/tui/light.go changed 6 times in last 90 days, max complexity 189. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 5 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: src/algo/algo.go src/algo/algo.go— src/algo/algo.go changed 5 times in last 90 days, max complexity 65. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 3 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: src/proxy.go src/proxy.go— src/proxy.go changed 4 times in last 90 days, max complexity 28. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: src/tui/tui.go src/tui/tui.go— src/tui/tui.go changed 4 times in last 90 days, max complexity 26. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: src/result.go src/result.go— src/result.go changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 38. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: src/server.go src/server.go— src/server.go changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 28. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
FileTooLong: src/terminal.go src/terminal.go:0— FileTooLong — 6090 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/options.go src/options.go:0— FileTooLong — 3021 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: tui/tui.go src/tui/tui.go:0— FileTooLong — 1189 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: tui/light.go src/tui/light.go:0— FileTooLong — 1121 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: tui/tcell.go src/tui/tcell.go:0— FileTooLong — 798 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: algo/algo.go src/algo/algo.go:0— FileTooLong — 746 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: algo/normalize.go src/algo/normalize.go:0— FileTooLong — 568 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 98% of them inside a single declaration: normalized (6-573). 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.
TooManyMethods: Terminal src/terminal.go:264— TooManyMethods — 142 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: LightRenderer src/tui/light.go:134— TooManyMethods — 50 methods, declared across 2 files: tui/light.go (40), tui/light_unix.go (10). That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: TcellWindow src/tui/tcell.go:40— TooManyMethods — 35 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: LightWindow src/tui/light.go:169— TooManyMethods — 33 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium CVE · ×3
Medium CVE: GO-2026-5024 go.mod— golang.org/x/sys 0.35.0 (golang.org/x/sys/windows): GO-2026-5024 — upgrade to 0.44.0
Medium CVE: GO-2026-5970 go.mod— golang.org/x/text 0.28.0 (golang.org/x/text/unicode/norm): GO-2026-5970 — golang.org/x/text is not a DIRECT requirement of this module: go.mod records it as `// indirect`, pulled in transitively, so raise it in place (run `go get golang.org/x/text@v0.39.0`, which updates the require line go.mod already holds for it).
Medium CVE: GO-2024-3105 go.mod— stdlib 1.23.0 (go/parser): GO-2024-3105 — fixed in Go 1.23.1; pin a build toolchain at or above it (go.mod `toolchain` directive, or your CI's Go version) — the `go` directive is a minimum language version, not the compiler that builds your binaries. This one row stands for the 51 advisories this scan raises against stdlib 1.23.0: GO-2024-3105, GO-2024-3106, GO-2024-3107, GO-2025-3373, GO-2025-3420, GO-2025-3447, GO-2025-3503, GO-2025-3563, GO-2025-3750, GO-2025-3751, GO-2025-3849, GO-2025-3956, GO-2025-4006, GO-2025-4007, GO-2025-4008, GO-2025-4009, GO-2025-4010, GO-2025-4011, GO-2025-4012, GO-2025-4013, GO-2025-4014, GO-2025-4015, GO-2025-4155, GO-2025-4175, GO-2026-4337, GO-2026-4340, GO-2026-4341, GO-2026-4342, GO-2026-4403, GO-2026-4601, GO-2026-4602, GO-2026-4603, GO-2026-4864, GO-2026-4865, GO-2026-4869, GO-2026-4870, GO-2026-4918, GO-2026-4946, GO-2026-4947, GO-2026-4970, GO-2026-4971, GO-2026-4976, GO-2026-4977, GO-2026-4980, GO-2026-4981, GO-2026-4982, GO-2026-4986, GO-2026-5037, GO-2026-5038, GO-2026-5039, GO-2026-5856.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/algo/algo.go:988— src/algo/algo.go:988-1000 | src/algo/algo.go:1059-1070 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/options.go:2454— src/options.go:2454-2465 | src/options.go:2472-2483 — 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 (8 lines × 2) src/terminal.go:6148— src/terminal.go:6148-6155 | src/terminal.go:6184-6191 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/terminal.go:6148` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/tui/tcell.go:858— src/tui/tcell.go:858-865 | src/tui/tcell.go:915-922 — 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.
Terminal.Loop (cyclomatic 747) src/terminal.go:6229— Terminal.Loop has cyclomatic complexity 747 (threshold 15). Of this number, 78 points are the body's own statements and 669 belong to 13 function literals 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.
fzf.parseOptions (cyclomatic 372) src/options.go:2529— fzf.parseOptions has cyclomatic complexity 372 (threshold 15). Of this number, 352 points are the body's own statements and 20 belong to 7 function literals 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.
LightRenderer.escSequence (cyclomatic 189) src/tui/light.go:438— LightRenderer.escSequence has cyclomatic complexity 189 (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.
Terminal.resizeWindows (cyclomatic 181) src/terminal.go:2556— Terminal.resizeWindows has cyclomatic complexity 181 (threshold 15). Of this number, 110 points are the body's own statements and 71 belong to 6 function literals 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.
fzf.parseKeyChords (cyclomatic 149) src/options.go:1004— fzf.parseKeyChords has cyclomatic complexity 149 (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.
fzf.Run (cyclomatic 127) src/core.go:55— fzf.Run has cyclomatic complexity 127 (threshold 15). Of this number, 43 points are the body's own statements and 84 belong to 9 function literals 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.
fzf.parseActionList (cyclomatic 118) src/options.go:1744— fzf.parseActionList has cyclomatic complexity 118 (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.
Terminal.printHighlighted (cyclomatic 96) src/terminal.go:4234— Terminal.printHighlighted has cyclomatic complexity 96 (threshold 15). Of this number, 95 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal 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.
fzf.parseTheme (cyclomatic 91) src/options.go:1413— fzf.parseTheme has cyclomatic complexity 91 (threshold 15). Of this number, 56 points are the body's own statements and 35 belong to one function literal 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.
Terminal.UpdateList (cyclomatic 66) src/terminal.go:2019— Terminal.UpdateList has cyclomatic complexity 66 (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.
Terminal.renderPreviewText (cyclomatic 66) src/terminal.go:4996— Terminal.renderPreviewText has cyclomatic complexity 66 (threshold 15). Of this number, 47 points are the body's own statements and 19 belong to 2 function literals 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.
algo.FuzzyMatchV2 (cyclomatic 65) src/algo/algo.go:639— algo.FuzzyMatchV2 has cyclomatic complexity 65 (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.
fzf.interpretCode (cyclomatic 65) src/ansi.go:405— fzf.interpretCode has cyclomatic complexity 65 (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.
fzf.NewTerminal (cyclomatic 65) src/terminal.go:971— fzf.NewTerminal has cyclomatic complexity 65 (threshold 15). Of this number, 62 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
fzf.postProcessOptions (cyclomatic 57) src/options.go:3708— fzf.postProcessOptions has cyclomatic complexity 57 (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.
Terminal.printInfoImpl (cyclomatic 55) src/terminal.go:3452— Terminal.printInfoImpl has cyclomatic complexity 55 (threshold 15). Of this number, 48 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to 4 function literals 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.
Terminal.printItem (cyclomatic 55) src/terminal.go:3951— Terminal.printItem has cyclomatic complexity 55 (threshold 15). Of this number, 29 points are the body's own statements and 26 belong to 4 function literals 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.
algo.fuzzyMatchV2Two (cyclomatic 43) src/algo/algo.go:479— algo.fuzzyMatchV2Two has cyclomatic complexity 43 (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.
fzf.parsePreviewWindowImpl (cyclomatic 43) src/options.go:2321— fzf.parsePreviewWindowImpl has cyclomatic complexity 43 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
Reader.readFiles (cyclomatic 39) src/reader.go:270— Reader.readFiles has cyclomatic complexity 39 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 39 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 318). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Result.colorOffsets (cyclomatic 38) src/result.go:132— Result.colorOffsets has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 19 belong to 2 function literals 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.
algo.exactMatchNaive (cyclomatic 35) src/algo/algo.go:1037— algo.exactMatchNaive has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
fzf.validateOptions (cyclomatic 29) src/options.go:3614— fzf.validateOptions has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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.
fzf.runProxy (cyclomatic 28) src/proxy.go:128— fzf.runProxy has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 3 function literals 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.
fzf.replacePlaceholder (cyclomatic 28) src/terminal.go:5523— fzf.replacePlaceholder has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 28 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 5530). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
httpServer.handleHttpRequest (cyclomatic 28) src/server.go:153— httpServer.handleHttpRequest has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal 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.
Terminal.resizeIfNeeded (cyclomatic 28) src/terminal.go:3667— Terminal.resizeIfNeeded has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 26 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
Terminal.constrain (cyclomatic 28) src/terminal.go:8568— Terminal.constrain has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal 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.
fzf.nextAnsiEscapeSequence (cyclomatic 27) src/ansi.go:190— fzf.nextAnsiEscapeSequence has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
tui.InitTheme (cyclomatic 26) src/tui/tui.go:1265— tui.InitTheme has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
fzf.parseTerms (cyclomatic 25) src/pattern.go:168— fzf.parseTerms has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Terminal.separatedByBorder (cyclomatic 24) src/terminal.go:1738— Terminal.separatedByBorder has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
algo.FuzzyMatchV1 (cyclomatic 23) src/algo/algo.go:939— algo.FuzzyMatchV1 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.
Terminal.adjustMarginAndPadding (cyclomatic 23) src/terminal.go:2311— Terminal.adjustMarginAndPadding has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals 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.
Terminal.executeCommand (cyclomatic 23) src/terminal.go:5736— Terminal.executeCommand has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal 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.
Chars.Lines (cyclomatic 23) src/util/chars.go:252— Chars.Lines 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.
fzf.buildResultFromBounds (cyclomatic 22) src/result.go:55— fzf.buildResultFromBounds 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.
fzf.parseTmuxOptions (cyclomatic 21) src/options.go:426— fzf.parseTmuxOptions 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.
fzf.BuildPattern (cyclomatic 21) src/pattern.go:79— fzf.BuildPattern 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.
Pattern.matchChunk (cyclomatic 21) src/pattern.go:322— Pattern.matchChunk 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.
LightRenderer.GetChar (cyclomatic 21) src/tui/light.go:352— LightRenderer.GetChar 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.
fzf.extractColor (cyclomatic 20) src/ansi.go:260— fzf.extractColor 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.
fzf.Transform (cyclomatic 20) src/tokenizer.go:266— fzf.Transform 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.
Reader.feed (cyclomatic 20) src/reader.go:153— Reader.feed 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.
LightRenderer.mouseSequence (cyclomatic 20) src/tui/light.go:904— LightRenderer.mouseSequence has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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.
LightWindow.drawBorder (cyclomatic 19) src/tui/light.go:1250— LightWindow.drawBorder 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.
fzf.radixSortResults (cyclomatic 18) src/result.go:354— fzf.radixSortResults has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
fzf.ParseRange (cyclomatic 18) src/tokenizer.go:102— fzf.ParseRange 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.
Terminal.environImpl (cyclomatic 18) src/terminal.go:1405— Terminal.environImpl has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.
fzf.parseTiebreak (cyclomatic 17) src/options.go:1349— fzf.parseTiebreak has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal 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.
Matcher.scan (cyclomatic 17) src/matcher.go:157— Matcher.scan has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to one function literal 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.
Terminal.addClickHeaderWord (cyclomatic 17) src/terminal.go:6082— Terminal.addClickHeaderWord 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.
TcellWindow.drawBorder (cyclomatic 17) src/tui/tcell.go:1129— TcellWindow.drawBorder 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.
algo.Init (cyclomatic 16) src/algo/algo.go:176— algo.Init has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ansiState.ToString (cyclomatic 16) src/ansi.go:43— ansiState.ToString has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
fzf.ParseOptions (cyclomatic 16) src/options.go:3905— fzf.ParseOptions 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.
Matcher.Loop (cyclomatic 16) src/matcher.go:81— Matcher.Loop has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal 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.
previewOpts.compare (cyclomatic 16) src/options.go:533— previewOpts.compare 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.
Terminal.Loop (cognitive 1521) src/terminal.go:6229— Terminal.Loop has cognitive complexity 1521 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 1166, loops 139, boolean chains 129, match/switch 75, jumps 12 (nesting depth added 953). Of this number, 155 points are the body's own statements and 1366 belong to 13 function literals 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.
LightRenderer.escSequence (cognitive 481) src/tui/light.go:438— LightRenderer.escSequence has cognitive complexity 481 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 401, match/switch 62, boolean chains 18 (nesting depth added 376). 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.
fzf.parseOptions (cognitive 455) src/options.go:2529— fzf.parseOptions has cognitive complexity 455 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 439, boolean chains 6, match/switch 6, loops 4 (nesting depth added 273). Of this number, 431 points are the body's own statements and 24 belong to 7 function literals 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.
fzf.Run (cognitive 320) src/core.go:55— fzf.Run has cognitive complexity 320 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 248, loops 33, boolean chains 22, match/switch 17 (nesting depth added 200). Of this number, 66 points are the body's own statements and 254 belong to 9 function literals 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.
Terminal.resizeWindows (cognitive 298) src/terminal.go:2556— Terminal.resizeWindows has cognitive complexity 298 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 239, boolean chains 32, loops 18, match/switch 9 (nesting depth added 113). Of this number, 168 points are the body's own statements and 130 belong to 6 function literals 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.
Terminal.printHighlighted (cognitive 210) src/terminal.go:4234— Terminal.printHighlighted has cognitive complexity 210 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 165, loops 24, boolean chains 21 (nesting depth added 108). Of this number, 206 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal 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.
Terminal.renderPreviewText (cognitive 169) src/terminal.go:4996— Terminal.renderPreviewText has cognitive complexity 169 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 123, boolean chains 25, loops 17, jumps 4 (nesting depth added 98). Of this number, 120 points are the body's own statements and 49 belong to 2 function literals 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.
algo.FuzzyMatchV2 (cognitive 109) src/algo/algo.go:639— algo.FuzzyMatchV2 has cognitive complexity 109 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 81, boolean chains 22, loops 6 (nesting depth added 46). 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.
Terminal.UpdateList (cognitive 105) src/terminal.go:2019— Terminal.UpdateList has cognitive complexity 105 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 74, boolean chains 15, loops 14, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 44). 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.
fzf.NewTerminal (cognitive 95) src/terminal.go:971— fzf.NewTerminal has cognitive complexity 95 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 81, boolean chains 14 (nesting depth added 17). Of this number, 90 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
fzf.postProcessOptions (cognitive 90) src/options.go:3708— fzf.postProcessOptions has cognitive complexity 90 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 64, loops 12, boolean chains 7, match/switch 7 (nesting depth added 34). 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.
algo.fuzzyMatchV2Two (cognitive 84) src/algo/algo.go:479— algo.fuzzyMatchV2Two has cognitive complexity 84 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 70, boolean chains 12, loops 2 (nesting depth added 39). 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.
Terminal.printInfoImpl (cognitive 84) src/terminal.go:3452— Terminal.printInfoImpl has cognitive complexity 84 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 77, boolean chains 6, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 24). Of this number, 75 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 4 function literals 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.
Reader.readFiles (cognitive 83) src/reader.go:270— Reader.readFiles has cognitive complexity 83 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 61, loops 12, boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 44). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 62 belong to one function literal 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.
Terminal.printItem (cognitive 79) src/terminal.go:3951— Terminal.printItem has cognitive complexity 79 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 67, boolean chains 10, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 26). Of this number, 35 points are the body's own statements and 44 belong to 4 function literals 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.
Terminal.constrain (cognitive 79) src/terminal.go:8568— Terminal.constrain has cognitive complexity 79 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 51, loops 21, boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 52). Of this number, 71 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to one function literal 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.
algo.exactMatchNaive (cognitive 75) src/algo/algo.go:1037— algo.exactMatchNaive has cognitive complexity 75 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 65, boolean chains 9, loops 1 (nesting depth added 37). 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.
Result.colorOffsets (cognitive 67) src/result.go:132— Result.colorOffsets has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 46, loops 16, boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 27). Of this number, 28 points are the body's own statements and 39 belong to 2 function literals 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.
Chars.Lines (cognitive 64) src/util/chars.go:252— Chars.Lines has cognitive complexity 64 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 52, loops 10, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 40). 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.
fzf.interpretCode (cognitive 63) src/ansi.go:405— fzf.interpretCode has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 35, match/switch 17, boolean chains 10, loops 1 (nesting depth added 28). 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.
fzf.runProxy (cognitive 59) src/proxy.go:128— fzf.runProxy has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 49, loops 7, boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 28). Of this number, 45 points are the body's own statements and 14 belong to 3 function literals 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.
fzf.buildResultFromBounds (cognitive 59) src/result.go:55— fzf.buildResultFromBounds has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 38, loops 17, boolean chains 2, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 41). 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.
fzf.Transform (cognitive 54) src/tokenizer.go:266— fzf.Transform has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 43, loops 7, boolean chains 2, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 32). 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.
fzf.nextAnsiEscapeSequence (cognitive 51) src/ansi.go:190— fzf.nextAnsiEscapeSequence has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 33, boolean chains 7, loops 6, match/switch 4, jumps 1 (nesting depth added 29). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fzf.parseActionList (cognitive 50) src/options.go:1744— fzf.parseActionList has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 36, loops 7, match/switch 6, 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.
algo.FuzzyMatchV1 (cognitive 45) src/algo/algo.go:939— algo.FuzzyMatchV1 has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 39, boolean chains 3, loops 3 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Terminal.executeCommand (cognitive 45) src/terminal.go:5736— Terminal.executeCommand has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 41, boolean chains 2, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 21). Of this number, 40 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to one function literal 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.
httpServer.handleHttpRequest (cognitive 44) src/server.go:153— httpServer.handleHttpRequest has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31, match/switch 7, boolean chains 4, jumps 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 21). Of this number, 41 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal 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.
fzf.extractColor (cognitive 40) src/ansi.go:260— fzf.extractColor has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 36, boolean chains 3, 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.
fzf.parseKeyChords (cognitive 40) src/options.go:1004— fzf.parseKeyChords has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25, boolean chains 8, match/switch 6, loops 1 (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.
fzf.parseTerms (cognitive 39) src/pattern.go:168— fzf.parseTerms has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31, boolean chains 7, loops 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Reader.feed (cognitive 38) src/reader.go:153— Reader.feed has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28, boolean chains 5, loops 5 (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.
fzf.validateOptions (cognitive 36) src/options.go:3614— fzf.validateOptions has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23, boolean chains 7, loops 6 (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.
fzf.BuildPattern (cognitive 35) src/pattern.go:79— fzf.BuildPattern has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20, boolean chains 7, loops 7, jumps 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fzf.replacePlaceholder (cognitive 35) src/terminal.go:5523— fzf.replacePlaceholder has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24, boolean chains 5, loops 3, match/switch 3 (nesting depth added 14). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 35 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 5530). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Matcher.Loop (cognitive 35) src/matcher.go:81— Matcher.Loop has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 27, loops 3, match/switch 3, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 19). Of this number, 27 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to one function literal 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.
algo.calculateScore (cognitive 34) src/algo/algo.go:879— algo.calculateScore has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31, boolean chains 2, loops 1 (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.
fzf.parseTheme (cognitive 34) src/options.go:1413— fzf.parseTheme has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20, match/switch 9, loops 4, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 22). Most of this is not in the body itself: 14 of the 34 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 1452). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Pattern.matchChunk (cognitive 33) src/pattern.go:322— Pattern.matchChunk has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23, boolean chains 5, loops 5 (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.
fzf.ParseOptions (cognitive 32) src/options.go:3905— fzf.ParseOptions has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fzf.radixSortResults (cognitive 32) src/result.go:354— fzf.radixSortResults has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 17, if/else 14, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
Pattern.extendedMatch (cognitive 32) src/pattern.go:416— Pattern.extendedMatch has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23, loops 9 (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.
tui.InitTheme (cognitive 29) src/tui/tui.go:1265— tui.InitTheme has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22, boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 1). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals 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.
LightWindow.drawBorder (cognitive 29) src/tui/light.go:1250— LightWindow.drawBorder has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22, boolean chains 5, loops 2 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fzf.startHttpServer (cognitive 27) src/server.go:81— fzf.startHttpServer has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25, boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to one function literal 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.
Terminal.adjustMarginAndPadding (cognitive 27) src/terminal.go:2311— Terminal.adjustMarginAndPadding has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, match/switch 4, loops 2 (nesting depth added 11). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals 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.
TcellWindow.drawBorder (cognitive 27) src/tui/tcell.go:1129— TcellWindow.drawBorder has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22, boolean chains 3, loops 2 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Matcher.scan (cognitive 26) src/matcher.go:157— Matcher.scan has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, loops 5, boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 10). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to one function literal 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.
LightWindow.fill (cognitive 26) src/tui/light.go:1473— LightWindow.fill has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22, loops 3, boolean chains 1 (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.
fzf.parseTiebreak (cognitive 24) src/options.go:1349— fzf.parseTiebreak has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, match/switch 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal 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.
fzf.parseKeymap (cognitive 24) src/options.go:2017— fzf.parseKeymap has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, boolean chains 3, loops 3 (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.
Terminal.addClickHeaderWord (cognitive 24) src/terminal.go:6082— Terminal.addClickHeaderWord has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, boolean chains 3, loops 3 (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.
fzf.parsePreviewWindowImpl (cognitive 23) src/options.go:2321— fzf.parsePreviewWindowImpl has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20, match/switch 2, loops 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.
Terminal.flush (cognitive 23) src/terminal.go:5301— Terminal.flush has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (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.
LightRenderer.mouseSequence (cognitive 23) src/tui/light.go:904— LightRenderer.mouseSequence has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17, boolean chains 4, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Terminal.environImpl (cognitive 22) src/terminal.go:1405— Terminal.environImpl has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20, boolean chains 2 (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.
Terminal.separatedByBorder (cognitive 22) src/terminal.go:1738— Terminal.separatedByBorder has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, boolean chains 7, loops 3 (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.
fzf.findPassThrough (cognitive 20) src/terminal.go:4731— fzf.findPassThrough has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, boolean chains 2, loops 2 (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.
Merger.mergedGet (cognitive 20) src/merger.go:155— Merger.mergedGet has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, boolean chains 4, loops 3 (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.
Terminal.resizeIfNeeded (cognitive 20) src/terminal.go:3667— Terminal.resizeIfNeeded has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 15, if/else 5. Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
Terminal.wordWrapAnsiLine (cognitive 20) src/terminal.go:4927— Terminal.wordWrapAnsiLine has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, loops 3, boolean chains 2 (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.
algo.debugV2 (cognitive 19) src/algo/algo.go:392— algo.debugV2 has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 10, if/else 9 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
fzf.nthTransformer (cognitive 19) src/options.go:857— fzf.nthTransformer has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17, loops 2 (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to one function literal 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.
fzf.parseMargin (cognitive 19) src/options.go:2433— fzf.parseMargin has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, 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.
LightWindow.PaintSectionFrame (cognitive 19) src/tui/light.go:1208— LightWindow.PaintSectionFrame has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, boolean chains 3, 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.
TcellWindow.fillString (cognitive 19) src/tui/tcell.go:959— TcellWindow.fillString has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, loops 3, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
TcellWindow.PaintSectionFrame (cognitive 19) src/tui/tcell.go:1079— TcellWindow.PaintSectionFrame has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, boolean chains 2, 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.
fzf.ParseRange (cognitive 18) src/tokenizer.go:102— fzf.ParseRange has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, boolean chains 5 (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.
ChunkList.Snapshot (cognitive 18) src/chunklist.go:118— ChunkList.Snapshot has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 8, if/else 7, boolean chains 3 (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.
Terminal.ansiLabelPrinter (cognitive 18) src/terminal.go:1583— Terminal.ansiLabelPrinter has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 6 of the 18 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 1626, 1600). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Terminal.trimLeft (cognitive 18) src/terminal.go:4156— Terminal.trimLeft has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10, loops 6, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal 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.
TcellWindow.printString (cognitive 18) src/tui/tcell.go:846— TcellWindow.printString has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, 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.
algo.Init (cognitive 17) src/algo/algo.go:176— algo.Init has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, loops 4, boolean chains 3, 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.
algo.EqualMatch (cognitive 17) src/algo/algo.go:1211— algo.EqualMatch has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, loops 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Terminal.printHeaderImpl (cognitive 17) src/terminal.go:3796— Terminal.printHeaderImpl has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, boolean chains 2, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
LightRenderer.stderrInternal (cognitive 17) src/tui/light.go:65— LightRenderer.stderrInternal has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, boolean chains 5, 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.
LightRenderer.GetChar (cognitive 17) src/tui/light.go:352— LightRenderer.GetChar has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, 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.
LightRenderer.getch (cognitive 17) src/tui/light_unix.go:117— LightRenderer.getch has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal 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.
algo.fuzzyMatchV2Single (cognitive 16) src/algo/algo.go:432— algo.fuzzyMatchV2Single has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, boolean chains 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fzf.parseTmuxOptions (cognitive 16) src/options.go:426— fzf.parseTmuxOptions has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, match/switch 3, boolean chains 1, loops 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.
fzf.parseGetParams (cognitive 16) src/server.go:259— fzf.parseGetParams has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, match/switch 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
fzf.RangesToString (cognitive 16) src/tokenizer.go:38— fzf.RangesToString has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, 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.
fzf.awkTokenizer (cognitive 16) src/tokenizer.go:155— fzf.awkTokenizer has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, match/switch 2, 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.
LightRenderer.getBytesInternal (cognitive 16) src/tui/light.go:307— LightRenderer.getBytesInternal has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, boolean chains 3, loops 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.
Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity. 15 floating ref(s) across 7 workflow file(s). Each floating ref is itemized at file:line by the SAST (D29) lens.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing· PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block · ×1
PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block — 1 workflow(s) triggered by pull_request declare no `permissions:` block (typos.yml) and so run with the repository's default GITHUB_TOKEN scope, while 6 sibling workflows in the same repository are already scoped. Pull-request runs build the least-trusted code in the repository; give each of these workflows its own least-privilege block — `permissions: {contents: read}` at the top of the workflow, widened per job only where a job genuinely writes.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) src/tui/tui.go:1135— src/tui/tui.go:1135-1149 | src/tui/tui.go:1186-1200 | src/tui/tui.go:1237-1251 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/algo/algo.go:1160— src/algo/algo.go:1160-1172 | src/algo/algo.go:1192-1204 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/algo/algo.go:1160` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/tui/light.go:1219— src/tui/light.go:1219-1225 | src/tui/light.go:1279-1285 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/tui/light.go:1219` 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 (6 lines × 2) src/pattern.go:361— src/pattern.go:361-366 | src/pattern.go:376-381 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/pattern.go:361` 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) src/terminal.go:7771— src/terminal.go:7771-7775 | src/terminal.go:7778-7782 — 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.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/functions.go:30— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/functions.go:34— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/result_x86.go:8— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is. This site reinterprets a memory region as another type. The conversion itself is checked by nothing, so it is correct only while the region is at least as large as the target type and correctly aligned for it — assert that before the conversion wherever the length or the offset comes from data this process did not produce.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/result_x86.go:9— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is. This site reinterprets a memory region as another type. The conversion itself is checked by nothing, so it is correct only while the region is at least as large as the target type and correctly aligned for it — assert that before the conversion wherever the length or the offset comes from data this process did not produce.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/result_x86.go:19— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is. This site reinterprets a memory region as another type. The conversion itself is checked by nothing, so it is correct only while the region is at least as large as the target type and correctly aligned for it — assert that before the conversion wherever the length or the offset comes from data this process did not produce.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/util/chars.go:30— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is. This site reinterprets a memory region as another type. The conversion itself is checked by nothing, so it is correct only while the region is at least as large as the target type and correctly aligned for it — assert that before the conversion wherever the length or the offset comes from data this process did not produce.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/util/chars.go:35— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is. This site reinterprets a memory region as another type. The conversion itself is checked by nothing, so it is correct only while the region is at least as large as the target type and correctly aligned for it — assert that before the conversion wherever the length or the offset comes from data this process did not produce.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/util/chars.go:67— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is. This site reinterprets a memory region as another type. The conversion itself is checked by nothing, so it is correct only while the region is at least as large as the target type and correctly aligned for it — assert that before the conversion wherever the length or the offset comes from data this process did not produce.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/util/chars.go:111— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is. This site reinterprets a memory region as another type. The conversion itself is checked by nothing, so it is correct only while the region is at least as large as the target type and correctly aligned for it — assert that before the conversion wherever the length or the offset comes from data this process did not produce.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/util/chars.go:218— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Low: use-of-unsafe-block src/util/chars.go:246— Using the unsafe package in Go gives you low-level memory management and many of the strengths of the C language, but also steps around the type safety of Go and can lead to buffer overflows and possible arbitrary code execution by an attacker. Only use this package if you absolutely know what you're doing. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is. This site reinterprets a memory region as another type. The conversion itself is checked by nothing, so it is correct only while the region is at least as large as the target type and correctly aligned for it — assert that before the conversion wherever the length or the offset comes from data this process did not produce.
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not included · ×1
Test reliability not included — Test source is present (.go, .rb) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 11 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/terminal.go, src/options.go, src/tui/tui.go, src/pattern.go, src/ansi.go, src/tmux.go, src/proxy.go, src/tui/light_windows.go (+3 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI — nothing binds a released artifact to the build that produced it, so a consumer cannot tell your artifact from a substituted one. On GitHub Actions, `actions/attest-build-provenance` (or slsa-github-generator) emits one from the job's own OIDC identity; elsewhere, run `cosign attest` over the released artifact from the release pipeline and publish the attestation beside it.
No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI — sign your released artifacts with whatever your ecosystem ships (a GPG/minisign detached signature — or `cosign sign-blob` — over the release archives, or over a checksum file published alongside them, a `signs:` block in `.goreleaser.yml` (cosign keyless or GPG over the checksums file), which GoReleaser then runs for every release artifact, `rpmsign --addsign` for RPMs / `debsign` plus a signed apt `Release.gpg` for DEBs) so consumers can verify what you built.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing· No SBOM · ×1
No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (an `sboms:` block in `.goreleaser.yml`, which GoReleaser runs on the release you already cut and attaches the document beside the artifacts, `cyclonedx-gomod` over the module graph — or Go's own build info, which already records the module set in the binary, `cyclonedx-ruby` over `Gemfile.lock`, `syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.
Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector — Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.go, .rb) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`, or lcov — SimpleCov with `simplecov-lcov`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored.
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· Dependency hygiene not measured · ×1
Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene — This repository's dependency manifests (a Go module (go.mod/go.sum) and a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems)) were found, but this pass cannot parse them for hygiene, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D38 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
0
—
Run 019fd55f-6325-7be4-af0b-d600ac6e1153 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 19 · Warnings: 177 · Recommendations: 17 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 06-08-2026 @ 04:40 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.