Public report of kernelENREK/Z80_NavigationBar, published 21 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 21 October 2026, 17:19 UTC · Survey ID cd_c3a3c8615f4f4419ae163e9ef2068b59
kernelENREK/Z80_NavigationBar
Measured 21 October 2026, 17:15 UTC, at code version 01d3ef9
Test distribution is not measured: No automated tests.
CAI scoreWeak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Down 4 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A small codebase: 7,215 lines of product code in 5 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.1 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 20
Findings by how serious they are
2 critical94 serious13 minor
6 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
21 October 2026, 17:15 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
54of 58 dimensions measured by tools. The other 4 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
97of 109 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 12 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
58dimensions across 5 lenses, read from 7,215 lines of product code in 5 projects.
kernelENREK/Z80_NavigationBar scores 45 out of 100 and is rated Weak, while three of its five lenses score higher still: Security and Compliance at 100, Architecture at 95 and Code Health at 93, all rated Exemplary.
The score is lower than those three because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 20 and is rated Critical. Its Code Coverage dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage and to resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 45 to about 62.
Two findings are critical: one in Code Coverage and one in Explicit Debt.
Watchdog couldn't measure 4 dimensions in this code, among them Dependency Hygiene, License Compliance and IL Efficiency, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 7,215 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €7,500, to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
If Production Readiness rose from 20 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 45 to about 62.
Code composition: what the lines of code are
Business logic 7%Supporting code 23%Generated by tools 71%
Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding
This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 6 October 2026, and is gone from this one.
Coupling · Off the main sequence: Z80NavBarControl
Rebuild cost: about €7,500 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€2,500 to €13,000, for 41 to 132 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.7 at a score of 45. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Small: 7,215 lines of product code
Comment lines
The estimate prices 6,943 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 7,215 lines but aren't priced as work.
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
Raises the score by about 17 points · Low effort · Code Coverage
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
Raises the score by about 17 points · Low effort · Test Distribution
3
Record your significant design decisions.
Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €7,500 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 20 (Critical). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 17 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 Code Coverage findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost
Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 6.9 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 3% to 6% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 4,511 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 18,295 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 1.2 to 7.2 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.
How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.
Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history
What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
17 modules, with 12 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
DemoCS.Z80_NavBar uses Z80NavBar.Themes, so a change to Z80NavBar.Themes can break DemoCS.Z80_NavBar, while a change to DemoCS.Z80_NavBar can't break Z80NavBar.Themes.
Position
Below the diagonal: DemoCS.Z80_NavBar uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
ExampleSettings uses ExampleSettings.ParamModels, so a change to ExampleSettings.ParamModels can break ExampleSettings, while a change to ExampleSettings can't break ExampleSettings.ParamModels.
Position
Below the diagonal: ExampleSettings uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
ExampleSettings uses ExampleSettings.Z80NavBar, so a change to ExampleSettings.Z80NavBar can break ExampleSettings, while a change to ExampleSettings can't break ExampleSettings.Z80NavBar.
Position
Below the diagonal: ExampleSettings uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
ExampleSettings uses ExampleSettings.Z80NavBar.Themes, so a change to ExampleSettings.Z80NavBar.Themes can break ExampleSettings, while a change to ExampleSettings can't break ExampleSettings.Z80NavBar.Themes.
Position
Below the diagonal: ExampleSettings uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Z80NavBarControl uses Z80NavBarControl.Z80NavBar, so a change to Z80NavBarControl.Z80NavBar can break Z80NavBarControl, while a change to Z80NavBarControl can't break Z80NavBarControl.Z80NavBar.
Position
Below the diagonal: Z80NavBarControl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Z80NavBarControl uses Z80NavBarControl.Z80NavBar.Themes, so a change to Z80NavBarControl.Z80NavBar.Themes can break Z80NavBarControl, while a change to Z80NavBarControl can't break Z80NavBarControl.Z80NavBar.Themes.
Position
Below the diagonal: Z80NavBarControl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DemoControlCS uses Z80NavBarControl.Z80NavBar, so a change to Z80NavBarControl.Z80NavBar can break DemoControlCS, while a change to DemoControlCS can't break Z80NavBarControl.Z80NavBar.
Position
Below the diagonal: DemoControlCS uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DemoControlCS uses Z80NavBarControl, so a change to Z80NavBarControl can break DemoControlCS, while a change to DemoControlCS can't break Z80NavBarControl.
Position
Below the diagonal: DemoControlCS uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Begin by establishing a CI workflow that builds and runs tests on every push to ensure immediate feedback, while simultaneously grouping production code under a src directory to separate it from tooling. Next, resolve the lack of automated tests by addressing the specific coverage and distribution gaps identified in the codebase. Finally, document significant design decisions in a dedicated folder to preserve architectural context and rationale for future reference.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this
survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.
Critical — 2
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a
missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here
tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 94
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades
the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to
carry for two years either.
Minor — 13
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 6
Something this survey could not settle
from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no
positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves
nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean
result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither
rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each
one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 54 of 58 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 58 dimensions across the health lenses
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, 97 of 109 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.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: `dotnet list package` exited 1 with no output.
D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. License scan produced no result — the tool ran but wrote no JSON report (no package reference resolved); the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Git history depth insufficient — this repository has 27 commit(s), too few for a reliable trend signal. The clone is complete, so there is no deeper history to fetch: the signal returns as the project accumulates history.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 27 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Too few commits to judge knowledge freshness (27 commit(s) sampled).
D35 Change Coupling — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Git history depth insufficient — this repository has 27 commit(s), too few for a reliable change-coupling signal. The clone is complete, so there is no deeper history to fetch: the signal returns as the project accumulates history.
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's own build of this repository failed for an ENVIRONMENT reason (exit 1) — MSBuild's engine or the CLR gave up, or our image does not carry the SDK band/targeting pack this repository needs. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo, and it is not a statement that this repository fails to build. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
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.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
Bring the 4 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cyclomatic 25), NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cyclomatic 20), NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cyclomatic 20). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 4 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.1 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 1 body over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cognitive 83). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 5.3 to about 5.9/10.
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 2 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with DemoItems.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Z80_Navigation.vb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Z80_Navigation.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
36 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 9 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
+ 30 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with FrmDemo2.cs (2), DarkTheme.vb, FrmDemo1.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with BlueTheme.vb, Z80_Navigation.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Z80_Navigation.cs, Z80_Navigation.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 7 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with BlueTheme.vb (3), DarkTheme.vb (3), RoyalTheme.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cohesion (LCOM4) in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.
Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.
No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository.
No automated tests
What to do
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Coverage in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
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.
Resolve the 1 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with Z80_Navigation.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
Resolve the 1 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with XMLSerialization.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SQLServerPrm.vb (2), UC_Scale.vb, UC_DataBase.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
5 projects, 69 source files, 7215 hand-written lines of code (7215 production / 0 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), plus 4761 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 1 inter-project edges.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README (Zilog80 NavigationBar Control) gives a clear overview and states NuGet availability with links; it also lists new features and sample demos. The Z80NavBarControl/README.txt is the directory README for that folder, not the project, so its content is judged only against itself. Both documents are well written but the latter (the VS toolbox fix guide) contains internal jargon ('toolbox', 'Choose items...', 'Browse') which would fall under internal-focused rather than missing an installation or usage section.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions · ×2README.md
What to do
Resolve the 2 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with DemoCS.csproj, DemoControlCS.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
3 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Inconsistent spelling of the suffix 'DEPTH' in constant names. The background color constants use 'NO_DEPHT' (missing 'H'), while the brush constants correctly use 'NO_DEPTH'.
Inconsistent spelling of the word 'Background'. The property name uses 'Backgroud' (missing 'n').
Inconsistent pluralization style for collection fields. 'Childs' uses an incorrect plural form (should be 'Children') and lacks the underscore prefix used by other internal list fields like '_parentID_List'.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent spelling of the suffix 'DEPTH' in constant names. The… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent spelling of the word 'Background'. The property name uses… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent pluralization style for collection fields. 'Childs' uses an… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment ValueStrong◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.
0 of 5 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.
Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
80 % of calls cross a namespace and 13 % go through an interface, but 61 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
What to do
Improve Navigability — currently 7.8/10. — 80 % of calls cross a namespace and 13 % go through an interface, but 61 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). — DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:780
What to do
Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 4 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.6 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.
Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.
Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
Only 1/5 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
Start a test surface where your build system looks for one (tests/, test/, spec/, or your ecosystem's test source set) — the separation follows from putting the first tests in the right place.
Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
For more than a log file, an `ActivitySource`/`EventSource` the user can switch on gives you a structured trace to attach to a bug report. A health-check endpoint does not apply here: nothing orchestrates or load-balances a binary the user launches.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Run what this repository's stack ships: a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
`f` is a `FrmDemo1`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 15). Every use of it in `BtnDemo1_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — DemoCS/FrmMain.cs:15
`f` is a `FrmDemo2`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 21). Every use of it in `BtnDemo2_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — DemoCS/FrmMain.cs:21
`f` is a `FrmDemo3`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 27). Every use of it in `BtnDemo3_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — DemoCS/FrmMain.cs:27
`f` is a `FrmDemo1`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 22). Every use of it in `BtnDemo1_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — DemoControlCS/FrmMain.cs:22
`f` is a `FrmDemo2`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 28). Every use of it in `BtnDemo2_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — DemoControlCS/FrmMain.cs:28
`f` is a `FrmDemo3`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 34). Every use of it in `BtnDemo3_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — DemoControlCS/FrmMain.cs:34
`f` is a `FrmDemoOrion`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 40). Every use of it in `button1_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — DemoControlCS/FrmMain.cs:40
What to do
Each finding names the value and the span that decides who owns it — the `new` that created it, or the constructor parameter that handed it over. Confirm ownership from that span, then make the disposal match it: release what this type created, leave what it was injected with to whoever created THAT, and drop a finalizer whose type holds nothing unmanaged to release.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.
Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.
Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Not evidenced — 2 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 58 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D10 Test Quality — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
D11 Test Reliability — No test suite was found to re-run, so reliability couldn't be assessed. Two searches produced that zero and both came back empty: the classifier that reads the loaded workspace recognised no suite it could run, and a walk of the source on disk — which covers the JS/TS `*.test.*` and `*.spec.*` conventions and probes for a Pester suite — found no test source in any other ecosystem either. Neither search reaches a suite that is missing from the loaded workspace and carries no name either walk recognises, so this is 'no suite found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
D14 License Compliance — Licence collector did not produce a result
D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — small single-context codebase (7,215 production LoC in the .NET projects) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — too few commits to judge knowledge freshness
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no async method does work a token could cancel
X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
EmptyCatchBlock ExampleSettings/Helpers/XMLSerialization.vb:45— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
No automated tests — No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely. Start with the code you change most often: add a suite in a framework a runner can collect (xUnit, NUnit or MSTest), and run it in CI so the gap cannot reopen.
Low cohesion: BlueTheme (LCOM4 8) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:6— BlueTheme's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: DarkTheme (LCOM4 8) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:6— DarkTheme's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: BlueTheme (LCOM4 8) ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:6— BlueTheme's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: DarkTheme (LCOM4 8) ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:6— DarkTheme's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: BlueTheme (LCOM4 8) Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:6— BlueTheme's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: DarkTheme (LCOM4 8) Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:6— DarkTheme's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: RoyalTheme (LCOM4 8) Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:3— RoyalTheme's methods fall into 8 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 8 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness· Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it · ×7
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it DemoCS/FrmMain.cs:15— `f` is a `FrmDemo1`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 15). Every use of it in `BtnDemo1_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it DemoCS/FrmMain.cs:21— `f` is a `FrmDemo2`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 21). Every use of it in `BtnDemo2_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it DemoCS/FrmMain.cs:27— `f` is a `FrmDemo3`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 27). Every use of it in `BtnDemo3_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it DemoControlCS/FrmMain.cs:22— `f` is a `FrmDemo1`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 22). Every use of it in `BtnDemo1_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it DemoControlCS/FrmMain.cs:28— `f` is a `FrmDemo2`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 28). Every use of it in `BtnDemo2_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it DemoControlCS/FrmMain.cs:34— `f` is a `FrmDemo3`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 34). Every use of it in `BtnDemo3_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it DemoControlCS/FrmMain.cs:40— `f` is a `FrmDemoOrion`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 40). Every use of it in `button1_Click` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var f = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
TodoComment ExampleSettings/Settings/Models/SQLServerPrm.vb:47— 'TODO: Decrypt password — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `' REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment ExampleSettings/Settings/Models/SQLServerPrm.vb:52— 'TODO: Encrypt password — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `' REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment ExampleSettings/Settings/UserInterface/Hardware/UC_Scale.vb:55— 'TODO: implement Comm test — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `' REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment ExampleSettings/Settings/UserInterface/UC_DataBase.vb:109— 'TODO: implement Database connection test — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `' REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Z80_Navigation.AutoExpand (cognitive 30) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:389— Z80_Navigation.AutoExpand has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.AutoExpand (cognitive 30) ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:389— Z80_Navigation.AutoExpand has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.AutoExpand (cognitive 30) DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:437— Z80_Navigation.AutoExpand has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.AutoExpand (cognitive 30) Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:496— Z80_Navigation.AutoExpand has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.OnItemClick (cognitive 25) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:440— Z80_Navigation.OnItemClick has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.OnItemClick (cognitive 25) ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:440— Z80_Navigation.OnItemClick has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.OnItemClick (cognitive 25) DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:497— Z80_Navigation.OnItemClick has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.OnItemClick (cognitive 25) Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:547— Z80_Navigation.OnItemClick has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:212— Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:212-216 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:209-213 — before extracting anything, compare `Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb` and `Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) DemoCS/FrmDemo1.cs:11— DemoCS/FrmDemo1.cs:11-15 | DemoControlCS/FrmDemo1.cs:18-22 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) DemoCS/FrmDemo2.cs:11— DemoCS/FrmDemo2.cs:11-15 | DemoControlCS/FrmDemo2.cs:18-22 — `DemoCS/FrmDemo2.cs` and `DemoControlCS/FrmDemo2.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 2 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 10 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) DemoCS/FrmDemo2.cs:24— DemoCS/FrmDemo2.cs:24-28 | DemoControlCS/FrmDemo2.cs:31-35 — `DemoCS/FrmDemo2.cs` and `DemoControlCS/FrmDemo2.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 2 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 10 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cyclomatic 20) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:629— NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cyclomatic 20) ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:629— NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cyclomatic 20) DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:697— NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint 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.
NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cognitive 60) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:629— NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cognitive 60) ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:629— NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cognitive 60) DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:697— NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.DrawControlItems (cognitive 17) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:255— Z80_Navigation.DrawControlItems has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.DrawControlItems (cognitive 17) ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:255— Z80_Navigation.DrawControlItems has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.DrawControlItems (cognitive 17) DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:283— Z80_Navigation.DrawControlItems has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
MethodTooLong: DemoItems.DemoItems(…) DemoControlCS/DemoItems.cs:14— MethodTooLong — DemoItems(…) runs 167 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 67 over it, 1.67× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: DemoItems.DemoItems(…) DemoCS/DemoItems.cs:11— MethodTooLong — DemoItems(…) runs 154 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 54 over it, 1.54× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
ClassTooLong: Z80_Navigation Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb— ClassTooLong — 562 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 25 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 162 over it, 1.41× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Z80_Navigation ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb— ClassTooLong — 448 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 21 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 48 over it, 1.12× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:191— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:191-195 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:192-197 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:191-195 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:192-197 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:200-204 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:201-206 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:230— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:230-249 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:256-295 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:230-249 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:256-295 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:304-323 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:331-402 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:260— DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:260-271 | DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:296-307 — 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 `DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:260` 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 (12 lines × 2) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:60— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:60-71 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:60-71 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:174— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:174-186 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:174-186 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:190-202 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:321— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:321-333 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:321-333 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:428-440 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:515— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:515-526 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:515-526 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:642-653 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:154— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:154-165 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:154-165 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:170-181 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:667— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:667-675 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:667-675 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:885-893 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:882` calls `If`, `DrawRectangle`, `BorderSolidColor` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:664` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:201— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:201-209 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:201-209 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:217-225 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 6) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:647— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:647-652 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:665-670 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:647-652 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:665-670 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:863-868 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:883-888 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:882` calls `If`, `DrawRectangle`, `BorderSolidColor` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:664` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 6) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:169— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:169-174 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:170-175 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:169-174 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:170-175 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:178-183 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:179-184 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:230— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:230-236 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:230-236 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:304-310 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:683— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:683-689 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:683-689 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:902-908 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:910` calls `If`, `DrawRectangle`, `BorderSolidColor` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:690` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cyclomatic 25) Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:845— NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Hotspot: Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:845— Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 25 in NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint at line 845. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 6 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2017-04-18..2017-07-17, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2017-04-18 20:23:45 +02:00' --until='2017-07-17 20:23:45 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint (cognitive 83) Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:845— NavBarItemPanel.OnPaint has cognitive complexity 83 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_Navigation.DrawControlItems (cognitive 30) Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:329— Z80_Navigation.DrawControlItems has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SettingsForm.ValidationOK (cognitive 26) ExampleSettings/Settings/UserInterface/SettingsForm.vb:125— SettingsForm.ValidationOK has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Z80_TextBox.OnTextChanged (cognitive 16) ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_TextBox.vb:195— Z80_TextBox.OnTextChanged has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FileTooLong: Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb— FileTooLong — 562 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 62 over it, 1.12× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 34 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 34 shared lines) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:390— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:390-431 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:390-431 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:497-538 — These 3 members are variants of one another: a block of 34 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 3 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 3 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Edited copy of a member (8 corresponding lines) · ×1
Edited copy of a member (8 corresponding lines) Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:212— Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:212-219 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:209-216 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 8 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (17 members, 50+ identical tokens) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:145— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:145-151 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:157-163 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:169-174 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:146-152 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:170-175 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:145-151 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:157-163 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:169-174 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:146-152 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:170-175 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:154-160 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:166-172 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:178-183 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:155-161 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:179-184 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:152-158 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:176-181 — These 17 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 17 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 17 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (14 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (14 members, 50+ identical tokens) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:110— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:110-116 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:122-128 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:110-117 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:123-129 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:110-116 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:122-128 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:110-117 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:123-129 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:119-125 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:131-137 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:119-126 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:132-138 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:116-123 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:129-135 — These 14 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 14 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 14 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (8 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (8 members, 50+ identical tokens) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:180— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:180-185 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:181-186 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:180-185 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:181-186 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:189-194 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:190-195 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:187-192 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:198-203 — These 8 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 8 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 8 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:134— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:134-139 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:135-140 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:134-139 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:135-140 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:143-148 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:144-149 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:141-146 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:158— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:158-164 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:158-164 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:167-173 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:164-170 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Duplicated block (60–80 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:447— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:447-506 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:447-506 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:554-633 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (4–57 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:650— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:650-706 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:650-706 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:895-898 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note 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 (34 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:390— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:390-423 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:390-423 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:497-530 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (25–30 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:256— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:256-285 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:256-285 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:339-363 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note 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 (27 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:630— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:630-656 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:630-656 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:846-872 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:873` calls `If`, `DrawRectangle`, `BorderSolidColor` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:657` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:231— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:231-249 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:231-249 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:111— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:111-126 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:111-126 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:127-142 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:233— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:233-243 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:265-275 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:233-243 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:265-275 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:307— Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:307-317 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:347-357 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:719— DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:719-724 | DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:740-745 — 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 `DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:719` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 14) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:110— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:110-116 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:122-128 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:110-117 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:123-129 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:110-116 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:122-128 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:110-117 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:123-129 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:119-125 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:131-137 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:119-126 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:132-138 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:116-123 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:129-135 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:158— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:158-164 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:158-164 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:167-173 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:164-170 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 8) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:180— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:180-185 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:181-186 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:180-185 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:181-186 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:189-194 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:190-195 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:187-192 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:198-203 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 7) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:134— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:134-139 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:135-140 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:134-139 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:135-140 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:143-148 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:144-149 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:141-146 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 17) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:146— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:146-151 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:158-163 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:169-174 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:148-152 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:170-175 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:146-151 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:158-163 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:169-174 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:148-152 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:170-175 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:155-160 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:167-172 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:178-183 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:157-161 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:179-184 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:154-158 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/RoyalTheme.vb:177-181 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:146` calls `Add`, `SolidBrush` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:169` does not — after which the two agree again for 5 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 6) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:191— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:191-195 | Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:192-197 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:191-195 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:192-197 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb:200-204 | Z80NavBarControl/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb:201-206 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/BlueTheme.vb` and `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Themes/Definitions/DarkTheme.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 38 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:281— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:281-287 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:281-287 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:384-388 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) DemoCS/FrmMain.cs:9— DemoCS/FrmMain.cs:9-29 | DemoControlCS/FrmMain.cs:16-42 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:135— Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:135-145 | ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb:135-145 | Z80NavBarControl/Z80_Navigation.vb:151-161 — before extracting anything, compare `Demo/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` and `ExampleSettings/CustomControls/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 20 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 392 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) DemoCS/FrmDemo1.cs:25— DemoCS/FrmDemo1.cs:25-32 | DemoControlCS/FrmDemo1.cs:32-39 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md— There are no installation/build or setup instructions in the document. Add an Install section covering NuGet package, target frameworks, and any prerequisites.
Documentation: no usage examples README.md— The README describes how to add the control via the toolbox but gives no runnable code example or usage instructions. Add a Usage section showing the minimal C# code to drag the control onto a form and initialize it.
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistent spelling of the suffix 'DEPTH' in constant names. The background color constants use 'NO_DEPHT' (missing 'H'), while the brush constants correctly use 'NO_DEPTH'. · ×1
Inconsistent spelling of the suffix 'DEPTH' in constant names. The background color constants use 'NO_DEPHT' (missing 'H'), while the brush constants correctly use 'NO_DEPTH'. — Standardize to 'NO_DEPTH' across all constants. (symbols: Field: private Color Z80NavBar.Themes.BlueTheme.DEFAULT_BACKGROUND_COLOR_NO_DEPHT, Field: private Color Z80NavBar.Themes.DarkTheme.DEFAULT_BACKGROUND_COLOR_NO_DEPHT, Field: private SolidBrush Z80NavBar.Themes.BlueTheme.DEFAULT_BRUSH_FONT_ITEM_SELECTED_NO_DEPTH, Field: private SolidBrush Z80NavBar.Themes.BlueTheme.DEFAULT_BRUSH_FONT_ITEM_NOT_SELECTED_NO_DEPTH, Field: private SolidBrush Z80NavBar.Themes.DarkTheme.DEFAULT_BRUSH_FONT_ITEM_SELECTED_NO_DEPTH, Field: private SolidBrush Z80NavBar.Themes.DarkTheme.DEFAULT_BRUSH_FONT_HOVER_NO_DEPTH)
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistent spelling of the word 'Background'. The property name uses 'Backgroud' (missing 'n'). · ×1
Inconsistent spelling of the word 'Background'. The property name uses 'Backgroud' (missing 'n'). — Rename to 'ItemDisableBackgroundColor'. (symbols: Property: public Color Z80NavBar.Themes.ITheme.ItemDisableBackgroudColor, Property: public Color Z80NavBar.Themes.DarkTheme.ItemDisableBackgroudColor, Property: public Color Z80NavBar.Themes.BlueTheme.ItemDisableBackgroudColor)
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistent pluralization style for collection fields. 'Childs' uses an incorrect plural form (should be 'Children') and lacks the underscore prefix used by other internal list fields like '_parentID_List'. · ×1
Inconsistent pluralization style for collection fields. 'Childs' uses an incorrect plural form (should be 'Children') and lacks the underscore prefix used by other internal list fields like '_parentID_List'. — Rename to 'Children' or '_children' to follow standard C# conventions and internal naming patterns. (symbols: Field: public List<NavBarItem> Z80NavBar.NavBarItem.Childs, Field: private List<int> DemoCS.Z80_NavBar.Z80_Navigation._parentID_List)
No tests found — No test suite could be collected — no discoverable tests to count. If this repository does test, wiring the suite to a framework a runner can collect (xUnit, NUnit or MSTest) is what makes it countable here; a pipeline step that invokes a runner is not evidence on its own, because a runner over an empty suite passes. Tests written as plain executables or shell/PowerShell harnesses are not collectible this way and are not scored here.
Commented-out code DemoCS/Z80_NavBar/Z80_Navigation.cs:780— A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
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.
nuget: not applicable — nuget: `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
0
—
Run 01a15f75-c3f3-7174-833e-94488fd05984 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 2 · Warnings: 94 · Recommendations: 13 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 21-10-2026 @ 17:15 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.