Public report of leo-project/leofs, published 23 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 23 October 2026, 17:39 UTC · Survey ID cd_c3f3b0a5dfbb41d9a71043b949380a15

leo-project/leofs

Measured 23 October 2026, 17:38 UTC, at code version 4ff701e

No regression since the last survey Dependency hygiene: not measuredBus factor: not measured

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

Dependency hygiene is not measured: Rebar3 pinning read, dependency currency NOT established (no Hex declaration resolved by a committed rebar.lock to grade).

Bus factor is not measured: No living knowledge left to concentrate.

CAI score 39out of 100 Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
No change 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.

Architecture 100 Exemplary Event-Driven 79 Strong Code Health 72 Strong Maturity 64 Adequate Event Sourcing 49 Weak Production Readiness 42 Weak Security and Compliance 23 Critical

A medium codebase: 29,266 lines of product code in 3 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Security and Compliance, 23

Findings by how serious they are

51 critical 105 serious 124 minor

32 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
23 October 2026, 17:38 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 ▸

38of 41 dimensions measured by tools. The other 3 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
267of 280 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 13 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
41dimensions across 7 lenses, read from 29,266 lines of product code in 3 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

leo-project/leofs scores 39 out of 100 and is rated Weak, while six of its seven lenses score higher still: Architecture at 100, rated Exemplary, Event-Driven at 79 and Code Health at 72, both rated Strong, Maturity at 64, rated Adequate, and Event Sourcing at 49 and Production Readiness at 42, both rated Weak.

The score is lower than those six because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Security and Compliance, which scores 23 and is rated Critical. Its IaC & Container Security dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Security and Compliance can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) and to resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning, and if Security and Compliance rose to 70, the score would rise from 39 to about 52.

51 findings are critical: 36 in IaC & Container Security, nine in Static Analysis (SAST), two in REDACTED Scanning, two in Secrets (history), one in Fold determinism and one in Outbox / dual-write.

Watchdog couldn't measure 32 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and License Compliance, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 29,266 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €29,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 72 Strong Architecture 100 ★ Exemplary Maturity 64 Adequate, capped by Knowledge Freshness Production Readiness 42 Weak, capped by REDACTED Scanning Security and Compliance 23 ⚠ Critical, capped by Static Analysis (SAST), IaC & Container Security and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Event-Driven 79 Strong Event Sourcing 49 Weak, capped by Fold determinism

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

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Security and Compliance 23 · counts for 46%Production Readiness 42 · counts for 25%Event Sourcing 49 · counts for 14%Maturity 64 · counts for 8%Code Health 72 · counts for 4%Event-Driven 79 · counts for 2%Architecture 100 · counts for 1%

If Security and Compliance rose from 23 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 39 to about 52.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 87%Tests 13%
Rebuild cost: about €29,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€9,500 to €48,000, for 159 to 503 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemStandard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×0.7 at a score of 39. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
SizeMedium: 29,266 lines of product code

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

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (7).
Raises the score by about 7 points · Low effort · Static Analysis (SAST)
2
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2).
Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · REDACTED Scanning
3
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.
Raises the score by about 3 points · Low effort · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €29,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 23 (Critical). Security and Compliance is about how well the product is protected, and how it handles personal data. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Security and Compliance also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Security and Compliance grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Security and Compliance actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST). Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 7 points for low effort, because it clears the 7 Static Analysis (SAST) findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

At a glance — Code Health · 72% · Strong ·

The Good
D2 · Erlang Cognitive Complexity 7.9 D3 · Erlang God Classes 7.1 D4 · Erlang Code Duplication 9.5 D17 · Erlang Explicit Debt 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0
The Bad
D1 · Erlang Cyclomatic Complexity 6.9 X3 · Repo Exception handling 5.2

At a glance — Architecture · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D5 · Erlang Coupling 10.0 D6 · Erlang Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · Erlang Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Erlang Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 64% · Adequate · gated by D34 ·

The Good
D15 · Erlang Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · Erlang Documentation Quality 8.8 D21 · Erlang Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0
The Bad
M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 6.0
The Ugly
D20 · Erlang ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · Erlang Knowledge Freshness 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 42% · Weak · gated by D13 ·

The Good
P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0
The Bad
P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0
The Ugly
D13 · Erlang REDACTED Scanning 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 4.0

At a glance — Security · 23% · Critical · gated by D29, D31, D36 ·

The Good
D28 · Erlang Secrets (history) 7.0
The Ugly
D29 · Erlang Static Analysis (SAST) 2.1 D31 · Erlang IaC & Container Security 0.0 D36 · Erlang Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Event-Driven · 79% · Strong ·

The Good
ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 7.9

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 49% · Weak · gated by ES1 ·

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

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration80High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection9High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures5High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures4Medium

Roadmap

Begin by addressing the seven static analysis issues in the CircleCI configuration and the thirty-six high-severity infrastructure-as-code findings in the REDACTED to immediately reduce security exposure. Next, remediate the two leaked secrets in the server key file and resolve the thirty-one medium-severity infrastructure-as-code warnings to harden the deployment environment. Finally, ensure the event-replay reducer remains deterministic by isolating all time and random value generation to the event creation phase.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (7).+7.0 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2).+5.1 ptsLowREDACTED Scanning
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+2.9 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+2.9 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+2.9 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 36 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (36).+5.1 ptsMediumIaC & Container Security
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2).+2.3 ptsLowSecrets (history)
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2).+2.3 ptsLowStatic Analysis (SAST)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 38 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 24% slop · 37% mixed · 39% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED0.3SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED0.3SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED0.4SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED0.4SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED0.4SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED0.4SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED1.6SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED3.5SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED3.7SlopIaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedREDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedREDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED4.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED6.3MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.3MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED6.3MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nfs_file_handler.erl6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: leo_manager_console.handle_call (cyclomatic 162)
apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: leo_manager_formatter_text.whereis (cyclomatic 19)
apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: leo_gateway_s3_api.get_bucket (cyclomatic 28)
apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl7.0MixedGod Classes: FileTooLong: src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl

How the grades work

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

Critical — 51

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 — 105

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 — 124

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

Could not be resolved — 32

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. 38 of 41 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — 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 — 41 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D13D15D17D19D20D21D26D28D29D31D34D35D36AX10AX3AX4AX9ED4ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P4P5P6X20X25X27X28X3

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 267 of 280 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a169d7-a154-7c41-88b6-05af2cee7296.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.erl) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`rebar3 do eunit --cover, cover` (or covertool for Cobertura XML)) 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. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (`rebar3 do eunit --cover, cover` (or covertool for Cobertura XML)) 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 — then the real number is read on the next scan.
  • D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.erl) and this repository declares a rebar3 project (repository root, 64 test files), but it was not re-run: the analyzer environment could not run it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • 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. Not scored — 31 rebar3 declaration(s) across 3 `rebar.config` and 0 package(s) pinned by a committed `rebar.lock` were read for PINNING discipline (4 defect(s) reported), but the outdated/retired signal needs hex.pm, which publishes none of these packages, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
  • 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. Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex)), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
  • 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. Every one of the 59 significant source file(s) was last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains, so there is no concentration to measure — the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness).
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway.app.src), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
  • D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
  • 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 REDACTED) is simply not read here yet.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — 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. Render strategy: boot via DockerCompose (Dockerfiles/docker-compose.yml). compose up failed (exit 15 — the compose project is invalid) — validating Dockerfiles/docker-compose.yml: (root) Additional property leofs is not allowed; runtime evidence skipped.
  • C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
  • C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
  • C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
  • C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Erlang is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Erlang is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 44 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 84.
  • P8 Schema migrations — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads EF Core usage in C# and the schema tooling its file scan recognises only, and no .NET project was loaded, and this repository's language is not one the scan models, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
  • X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, Rust, Swift, Ruby, Dart, PHP, Python and Go source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, Rust, Swift, Ruby, Dart, PHP, Python or Go was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust and Dart source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python, Go, Rust or Dart was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Rust, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala, JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — 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. X7 measured the part of this repository it reads (C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Swift and Dart), and its Erlang source is outside the check's reach, so the card covers only part of the product. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the unread source is free of silent defaults.

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.
  • D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • 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.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; 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.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

7 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was leo_manager_console.handle_call at 162. A further 5 function(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being leo_gateway_http_commons.reply_fun at 113 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 2 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_req_handler.erl (leo_gateway_http_req_handler.handle at 17), apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nlm_lock_handler_common.erl (leo_nlm_lock_handler_common.modify_lock at 16). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

leo_manager_console.handle_call (cyclomatic 162)apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:64
leo_manager_console.update_property_1 (cyclomatic 29)apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:969
leo_gateway_s3_api.get_bucket (cyclomatic 28)apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:232
leo_gateway_s3_api.auth_1 (cyclomatic 22)apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:1623
leo_manager_formatter_text.whereis (cyclomatic 19)apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1322

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

What to do

  1. Bring the 1 body over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with leo_manager_console.handle_call (cyclomatic 162). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 6.9 to about 8.7/10.
  2. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

11 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was leo_manager_console.handle_call at 46.

leo_manager_console.handle_call (cognitive 46)apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:64
leo_manager_console.version_all (cognitive 28)apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:1472
leo_gateway_s3_api.auth_1 (cognitive 25)apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:1623
leo_gateway_s3_api.handle_1 (cognitive 25)apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:789
leo_manager_console.status (cognitive 25)apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:1581

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

What to do

  1. Bring the 1 body over 30 down to 30 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with leo_manager_console.handle_call (cognitive 46). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 7.9 to about 8.4/10.
  2. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

18 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

FileTooLong: src/leo_manager_api.erl · ×18apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_api.erl

What to do

  1. Resolve the 18 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with leo_manager_api.erl, leo_gateway_s3_api.erl, leo_manager_console.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 warning-level).
  2. Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 30 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

29 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted.

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×5apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl:1397
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:339
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×3apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:911
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:653
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:310

+ 14 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with leo_manager_formatter_json.erl (2), leo_gateway_http_commons.erl, leo_nlm_proto4_server.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with leo_manager_mnesia.erl (2), leo_manager_console.erl, leo_nlm_lock_handler_common.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with leo_manager_formatter_text.erl (2), leo_gateway_s3_api.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D5 · 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.

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

3 production modules (OTP), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

0 of 8 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D13 · REDACTED Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

2 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Enforce REDACTED Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 deducted task-comment markers across 29266 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoCommentapps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nfs_file_handler.erl:630

What to do

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

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

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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.

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

This repository is well documented with a strong README that states what the project is and its purpose (a storage system for data lakes), an overview section describing features like multi-protocol support, large object handling, multi-data-center replication, and architecture, plus detailed architecture docs. The per-directory READMEs document their own directories (docs/, apps/leo_gateway/, apps/leo_manager/, apps/leo_storage/) without referencing the repository root's overview, installation, or contribution guidance; they are clipped by the scanner and not penalized. There is no missing-architecture-docs finding because the architecture docs themselves are present and named in the outline. LeoFS's documentation is comprehensive and well-structured: a README for each deploy tier (priv/test/ls-test) plus architecture/design docs covering the system-wide overview, v1.3 release notes, leofs-adm command index, troubleshooting FAQ, and client-side FAQs, all with clear headings and cross-references. The root README gives an overview of what LeoFS is and its goals; each document in the set is judged against its own directory rather than the repository's top-level guidance. The documentation is comprehensive and well-structured for a systems project. It includes an FAQ covering operational limits (S3 multipart upload size constraints, multi-cluster replication milestones), a detailed cluster-ansible installation guide with hosts configuration, a quick-installation section for Ubuntu and CentOS, and a dedicated Documentation Issues document addressing both internal gaps and real-world scrub/strict-check questions. The architecture/design docs are also present but not shown in the summary.

Documentation: no project overviewdocs/faq/limits.md

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with limits.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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.

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 of 3 build units (rebar3) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)7.0 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

3 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

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

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.1 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

9 finding(s): 0 critical, 9 high, 0 medium, 0 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `REDACTED` (lines 17–35) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).

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

D31 · IaC & Container Security0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (REDACTED/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

80 finding(s): 0 critical, 36 high, 31 medium, 13 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 36 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (36). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (36 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 31 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (31). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (31 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 13 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (13). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

59 of 59 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl. Counted over 59 of the 70 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×56apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1
Most significant orphaned file · ×3apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:1
Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 56 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with leo_manager_formatter_text.erl, leo_gateway_http_commons.erl, leo_storage_handler_object.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (56 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with leo_gateway_s3_api.erl, leo_manager_api.erl, leo_manager_console.erl. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

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

0/3 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM).

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

  • `leo_manager_mq_client` clause `recover_rebalance/2#203` PERSISTS state AND BROADCASTS a domain event as two independent side effects in the same clause, with no shared transaction or outbox. A crash between the two — or a redelivered message — diverges the store from what subscribers saw (state committed, broadcast lost) or emits a phantom event (broadcast sent, state rolled back). Record the event alongside the state in the SAME write and dispatch it from there afterwards (a transactional outbox); where the store is mnesia, wrapping both in one `mnesia:transaction` achieves the same atomicity directly. Divergence blast-radius: MEDIUM. — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mq_client.erl:210

What to do

  • Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.
ES1 · Fold determinism1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the event-sourcing replay fold reconstructs state purely from the event (no wall clock, UUID or randomness) so replay is reproducible.

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

  • `leo_manager_mnesia`'s event-replay reducer reads a wall clock / randomness / a peer process / persistence while reconstructing aggregate state — replaying the same events would rebuild DIFFERENT state each run. A fold must be a pure function of (state, event); stamp the timestamp/id into the event at raise-time and read it back in the fold. — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:507

What to do

  • Keep the event-replay reducer pure — move every clock/UUID/random into the event at raise-time and read it back in the fold.
ES2 · Immutable events10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether persisted events stay immutable (never rewritten in place).

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

M1 · Documentation (README)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M4 · Documentation accuracy6.0 / 10Adequate◐ Sampled · advisory

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.

  • README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists — searched for: `kubernetes`, `k8s`, `helm`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:295
  • docs/README.md links to `a`, but `docs/a` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/README.md:70
  • docs/index.md links to `a`, but `docs/a` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/index.md:70
  • docs/whats_new.md links to `/admin/settings/environment_config.md`, but `admin/settings/environment_config.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/whats_new.md:14
  • docs/whats_new.md links to `/admin/system_admin/migration/`, but `admin/system_admin/migration` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/whats_new.md:15
  • docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_gateway.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_gateway.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md:17
  • docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md links to `/admin/protocols/s3.md`, but `admin/protocols/s3.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md:18
  • docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md links to `/admin/protocols/rest.md`, but `admin/protocols/rest.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md:19
  • docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md links to `/admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md`, but `admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md:20
  • docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md links to `/admin/system_operations/s3.md`, but `admin/system_operations/s3.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md:21
  • docs/architecture/leo_manager.md links to `/admin/index_of_commands.md`, but `admin/index_of_commands.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_manager.md:14
  • docs/architecture/leo_manager.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_manager.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_manager.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_manager.md:15
  • docs/architecture/leo_storage.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_gateway/#cache-consistency-between-leogateway-and-leostorage`, but `admin/settings/leo_gateway` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_storage.md:15
  • docs/architecture/leo_storage.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_storage.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_storage.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_storage.md:60
  • docs/architecture/leo_storage.md links to `/admin/system_operations/cluster.md`, but `admin/system_operations/cluster.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_storage.md:61
  • docs/architecture/leo_storage.md links to `AVS`, but `docs/architecture/AVS` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_storage.md:64
  • docs/architecture/leo_storage.md links to `a`, but `docs/architecture/a` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/architecture/leo_storage.md:65
  • docs/benchmark/README.md links to `/installation/quick.md`, but `installation/quick.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/benchmark/README.md:139
  • docs/benchmark/README.md links to `/installation/cluster.md`, but `installation/cluster.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/benchmark/README.md:140
  • docs/benchmark/README.md links to `/admin/system_operations/s3.md`, but `admin/system_operations/s3.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/benchmark/README.md:141
  • docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/setup/planning_for_production.md`, but `admin/setup/planning_for_production.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/cluster.md:223
  • docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/settings/environment_config.md`, but `admin/settings/environment_config.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/cluster.md:224
  • docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/settings/cluster.md`, but `admin/settings/cluster.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/cluster.md:225
  • docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_manager.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_manager.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/cluster.md:226
  • docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_storage.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_storage.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/cluster.md:227
  • docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_gateway.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_gateway.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/cluster.md:228
  • docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/system_operations/cluster.md`, but `admin/system_operations/cluster.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/cluster.md:229
  • docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/faq/client.md`, but `faq/client.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/cluster.md:230
  • docs/installation/quick.md links to `/admin/system_operations/systemd.md#mixing-old-and-new-way-to-launch-nodes`, but `admin/system_operations/systemd.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/quick.md:106
  • docs/installation/quick.md links to `/admin/settings/environment_config.md`, but `admin/settings/environment_config.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/quick.md:280
  • docs/installation/quick.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_manager.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_manager.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/quick.md:281
  • docs/installation/quick.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_storage.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_storage.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/quick.md:282
  • docs/installation/quick.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_gateway.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_gateway.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/installation/quick.md:283
  • docs/production_checklist/README.md links to `a`, but `docs/production_checklist/a` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/production_checklist/README.md:16
  • priv/mon/README.md documents the environment variable `INFLUXDB_HOME`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — priv/mon/README.md:39
  • priv/mon/README.md documents the environment variable `TELEGRAF_HOME`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — priv/mon/README.md:41
  • docs/admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md links to `/installation/quick.md`, but `installation/quick.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md:52
  • docs/admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md links to `/installation/cluster.md`, but `installation/cluster.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md:53
  • docs/admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md links to `/faq/limits.md`, but `faq/limits.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md:203
  • docs/admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_gateway.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_gateway.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md:208

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists; docs/README.md links to `a`, but `docs/a` does not exist; docs/index.md links to `a`, but `docs/a` does not exist; docs/whats_new.md links to `/admin/settings/environment_config.md`, but `admin/settings/environment_config.md` does not exist; docs/whats_new.md links to `/admin/system_admin/migration/`, but `admin/system_admin/migration` does not exist.
P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

  • Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P5 · DR & Backup4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

What to do

  • Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
  • No persistence guard on critical data stores — use Docker named volumes (or your orchestrator's persistent-volume equivalent) so the data store can't be wiped by a container recreate (or, in cloud, set purge-protection / soft-delete / prevent_destroy).
P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 `NullPointerException` (Java, Kotlin, Scala), `ArgumentError.notNull` (Dart) or `ArgumentNullException` (F#'s `nullArg`) 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.

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

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

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

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a walk over an ETS table leaves the key it stands on alone — Erlang's own lists and maps are values no body can change, but an ETS key traversal asks the table for the key after the current one, so on a `set`, `bag` or `duplicate_bag` that is not fixed with `ets:safe_fixtable/2`, deleting the current key and then calling `ets:next/2` (or `ets:prev/2`) from it raises `badarg` and the rest of the table is never visited.

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.

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.

X3 · Exception handling5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

  • `catch _:_` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×2) — apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl:348, apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_watchdog_msgs.erl:166

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health72%StrongSolid.
Architecture100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity64%Adequate — gated by D34Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness42%Weak — gated by D13Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security23%Critical — gated by D29, D31, D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven79%StrongSolid.
Event Sourcing49%Weak — gated by ES1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
  • X31 Test-only surface in a production module — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 3 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
Not included — 76 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: the BEAM has no dependency-injection container — state lives in processes, and no process is handed an instance whose lifetime another one scopes.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No class in this Java code is a Spring, JSR-330 or CDI singleton bean. Erlang processes share no mutable memory — state lives in a process's own mailbox — so there is no shared object to race on.
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 15 — the compose project is invalid) — validating Dockerfiles/docker-compose.yml: (root) Additional property leofs is not allowed; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
  • C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~4391 lines of test source are present (.erl) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .erl suite was found but not re-run
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 31 rebar3 declaration(s) across 3 `rebar.config` and 0 package(s) pinned by a committed `rebar.lock` were read for PINNING discipline (4 defect(s) reported), but the outdated/retired signal needs hex.pm, which publishes none of these packages, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
  • D14 License Compliance — Package manifest not parsed for licence data — analyzer language-coverage gap
  • D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.erl), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex) — not scanned yet).
  • 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.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • 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 rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex) — 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 project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
  • D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.erl) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (48 value object(s))
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
  • P2 Observability — This repository's Erlang source (3 module(s), 70 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the Erlang source (service entry point: apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl:95 (cowboy_router:compile())
  • P8 Schema migrations — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`rebar3 do eunit --cover, cover` (or covertool for Cobertura XML)) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `erlperf:run`/`compare`/`benchmark`/`time` calls, a common_test `benchmark_data` event, `bench_*` functions in a `bench_*.erl` module where rebar.config installs rebar3_bench, or erlperf or rebar3_bench in a rebar.config, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Erlang runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: Erlang has no async/await function colour, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X12 Unreachable branch — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X13 Undrained process stream — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — Not applicable: this check looks for a pattern guard or `case` label that increments, decrements or assigns while the switch is deciding whether it matches, and in this repository's languages none can. An Erlang guard admits only comparisons, arithmetic and guard BIFs — the compiler rejects anything with an effect — and a variable is bound exactly once. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — Not applicable: this check looks for a method whose returned value contradicts the flag its `finally` reads to decide whether to give back a lock it took, and in this repository's languages the body cannot set a flag that its cleanup reads. Erlang will not compile it: a variable bound inside `try` is "unsafe" in its `after` clause, so the body cannot record a handoff where the cleanup can read it. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Erlang processes share no heap: a value sent to another process arrives as a copy, so no collection is reachable from two processes at once. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X5 Nullable reference types — Not applicable: this check asks whether the null-typed discipline a language offers is switched on, and how much of that the assertion operator takes back, and in this repository's languages there is no such switch and no such operator. Erlang has no null: every variable is bound, absence is a value you pattern-match (`undefined`, `nil`, the error tuples), and there is no static type checker whose null warning could be turned on or off. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 51 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×36
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • + 11 more in this group — see findings.md.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D13 · REDACTED Scanning · Leaked secret · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write · Dual write (no outbox) · ×1
  • Dual write (no outbox): leo_manager_mq_client.recover_rebalance/2#203 apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mq_client.erl:210 — `leo_manager_mq_client` clause `recover_rebalance/2#203` PERSISTS state AND BROADCASTS a domain event as two independent side effects in the same clause, with no shared transaction or outbox. A crash between the two — or a redelivered message — diverges the store from what subscribers saw (state committed, broadcast lost) or emits a phantom event (broadcast sent, state rolled back). Record the event alongside the state in the SAME write and dispatch it from there afterwards (a transactional outbox); where the store is mnesia, wrapping both in one `mnesia:transaction` achieves the same atomicity directly. Divergence blast-radius: MEDIUM.
ES1 · Fold determinism · Nondeterministic fold · ×1
  • Nondeterministic fold: leo_manager_mnesia apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:507 — `leo_manager_mnesia`'s event-replay reducer reads a wall clock / randomness / a peer process / persistence while reconstructing aggregate state — replaying the same events would rebuild DIFFERENT state each run. A fold must be a pure function of (state, event); stamp the timestamp/id into the event at raise-time and read it back in the fold.
Serious — 105 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×31
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • + 6 more in this group — see findings.md.
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×18
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_manager_api.erl apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_api.erl — FileTooLong — 2356 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 51 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1856 over it, 4.71× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl — FileTooLong — 2039 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 50 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1539 over it, 4.08× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_manager_console.erl apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl — FileTooLong — 2012 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 60 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1512 over it, 4.02× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_storage_handler_object.erl apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_handler_object.erl — FileTooLong — 1440 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 940 over it, 2.88× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl — FileTooLong — 1233 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 32 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 733 over it, 2.47× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl — FileTooLong — 1087 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 587 over it, 2.17× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_storage_mq.erl apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_mq.erl — FileTooLong — 889 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 389 over it, 1.78× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: include/leo_storage.hrl apps/leo_storage/include/leo_storage.hrl — FileTooLong — 705 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 205 over it, 1.41× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_nfs_proto3_server.erl apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nfs_proto3_server.erl — FileTooLong — 683 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 183 over it, 1.37× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl — FileTooLong — 672 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 37 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 172 over it, 1.34× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_nfs_file_handler.erl apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nfs_file_handler.erl — FileTooLong — 654 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 154 over it, 1.31× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl — FileTooLong — 597 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 97 over it, 1.19× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_storage_handler_del_directory.erl apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_handler_del_directory.erl — FileTooLong — 592 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 92 over it, 1.18× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_storage_api.erl apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_api.erl — FileTooLong — 567 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 67 over it, 1.13× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: src/leo_gateway_app.erl apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_app.erl — FileTooLong — 557 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 57 over it, 1.11× the bar. In this language a module is exactly one source file, so its length cannot be moved into sibling files of the same module. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no one module has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: include/leo_http.hrl apps/leo_gateway/include/leo_http.hrl — FileTooLong — 556 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 56 over it, 1.11× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: include/leo_manager.hrl apps/leo_manager/include/leo_manager.hrl — FileTooLong — 529 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.06× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
  • FileTooLong: include/leo_gateway.hrl apps/leo_gateway/include/leo_gateway.hrl — FileTooLong — 526 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 26 over it, 1.05× 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 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×5
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl:1397 — apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl:1397-1405 | apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nfs_file_handler.erl:602-610 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nlm_proto4_server.erl:229 — apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nlm_proto4_server.erl:229-238 | apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nlm_proto4_server.erl:247-255 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:426 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:426-434 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:439-447 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:281 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:281-289 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:336-344 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:243 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:243-251 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:323-331 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:339 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:339-346 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:356-363 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:199 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:199-206 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:224-231 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:419 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:419-426 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:471-478 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nlm_lock_handler_common.erl:174 — apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nlm_lock_handler_common.erl:174-181 | apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nlm_lock_handler_common.erl:183-190 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:911 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:911-915 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1286-1291 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1020 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1020-1025 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1285-1289 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:2039 — apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:2039-2043 | apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:2141-2145 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:653 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:653-662 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1292-1301 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl` and `apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 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 (10 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:534 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:534-543 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:697-706 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:310 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:310-319 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:374-380 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:2311 — apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:2311-2317 | apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nfs_mount3_server.erl:167-173 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×2
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl:348 — `catch _:_` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_watchdog_msgs.erl:166 — `catch _:_` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · leo_manager_console.handle_call (cyclomatic 162) · ×1
  • leo_manager_console.handle_call (cyclomatic 162) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:64 — leo_manager_console.handle_call has cyclomatic complexity 162 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl holds 3 of the 7 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 163 of the 188 points over it (87%), 8.2× the next-largest file (apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl at 20). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · leo_manager_console.update_property_1 (cyclomatic 29) · ×1
  • leo_manager_console.update_property_1 (cyclomatic 29) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:969 — leo_manager_console.update_property_1 has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl holds 3 of the 7 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 163 of the 188 points over it (87%), 8.2× the next-largest file (apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl at 20). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · leo_gateway_s3_api.get_bucket (cyclomatic 28) · ×1
  • leo_gateway_s3_api.get_bucket (cyclomatic 28) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:232 — leo_gateway_s3_api.get_bucket has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · leo_gateway_s3_api.auth_1 (cyclomatic 22) · ×1
  • leo_gateway_s3_api.auth_1 (cyclomatic 22) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:1623 — leo_gateway_s3_api.auth_1 has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · leo_manager_formatter_text.whereis (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • leo_manager_formatter_text.whereis (cyclomatic 19) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1322 — leo_manager_formatter_text.whereis has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · leo_manager_console.status (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • leo_manager_console.status (cyclomatic 17) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:1581 — leo_manager_console.status has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl holds 3 of the 7 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 163 of the 188 points over it (87%), 8.2× the next-largest file (apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl at 20). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · leo_gateway_http_commons.send_chunk (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • leo_gateway_http_commons.send_chunk (cyclomatic 16) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl:1367 — leo_gateway_http_commons.send_chunk has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: leo_gateway_http_commons.reply_fun (cyclomatic 113) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded function is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · No dependency lockfile committed (apps/leo_gateway/rebar.config) · ×1
  • No dependency lockfile committed (apps/leo_gateway/rebar.config) — apps/leo_gateway/rebar.config declares 14 dependencies but no lockfile (rebar.lock or mix.lock) is committed beside it, so `rebar3 compile` resolves versions afresh on every machine and every CI run — two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Run `rebar3 compile` and commit the resulting `rebar.lock`.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Floating source dependency · ×1
  • Floating source dependency: cowboy — Runtime dependency `cowboy` is fetched from source in apps/leo_gateway/rebar.config and tracks branch `for-leofs-1.4` — the declaration pins no immutable revision, so `rebar3 upgrade` moves this dependency to code nobody reviewed. Pin it with `{tag, "v1.2.3"}` or `{ref, "<full commit SHA>"}`.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · No dependency lockfile committed (apps/leo_manager/rebar.config) · ×1
  • No dependency lockfile committed (apps/leo_manager/rebar.config) — apps/leo_manager/rebar.config declares 8 dependencies but no lockfile (rebar.lock or mix.lock) is committed beside it, so `rebar3 compile` resolves versions afresh on every machine and every CI run — two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Run `rebar3 compile` and commit the resulting `rebar.lock`.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · No dependency lockfile committed (apps/leo_storage/rebar.config) · ×1
  • No dependency lockfile committed (apps/leo_storage/rebar.config) — apps/leo_storage/rebar.config declares 9 dependencies but no lockfile (rebar.lock or mix.lock) is committed beside it, so `rebar3 compile` resolves versions afresh on every machine and every CI run — two builds of this commit are not guaranteed to be the same build. Run `rebar3 compile` and commit the resulting `rebar.lock`.
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×1
  • TodoComment apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nfs_file_handler.erl:630 — %% TODO Handle Truncate Large Object — 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_manager_console.handle_call (cognitive 46) · ×1
  • leo_manager_console.handle_call (cognitive 46) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:64 — leo_manager_console.handle_call has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 46. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl holds 6 of the 11 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 70 of the 93 points over it (75%), 3.3× the next-largest file (apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl at 21). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_manager_console.version_all (cognitive 28) · ×1
  • leo_manager_console.version_all (cognitive 28) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:1472 — leo_manager_console.version_all has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 17 (28 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl holds 6 of the 11 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 70 of the 93 points over it (75%), 3.3× the next-largest file (apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl at 21). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_gateway_s3_api.auth_1 (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • leo_gateway_s3_api.auth_1 (cognitive 25) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:1623 — leo_gateway_s3_api.auth_1 has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 10 (22 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_gateway_s3_api.handle_1 (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • leo_gateway_s3_api.handle_1 (cognitive 25) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:789 — leo_gateway_s3_api.handle_1 has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 16 (24 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_manager_console.status (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • leo_manager_console.status (cognitive 25) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:1581 — leo_manager_console.status has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 16 (25 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl holds 6 of the 11 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 70 of the 93 points over it (75%), 3.3× the next-largest file (apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl at 21). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_manager_console.update_consistency_level (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • leo_manager_console.update_consistency_level (cognitive 23) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:1182 — leo_manager_console.update_consistency_level has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (14 pts), error handling 3 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl holds 6 of the 11 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 70 of the 93 points over it (75%), 3.3× the next-largest file (apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl at 21). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_manager_console.update_property_1 (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • leo_manager_console.update_property_1 (cognitive 22) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:969 — leo_manager_console.update_property_1 has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 22. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl holds 6 of the 11 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 70 of the 93 points over it (75%), 3.3× the next-largest file (apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl at 21). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_gateway_http_commons.onresponse (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • leo_gateway_http_commons.onresponse (cognitive 16) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl:259 — leo_gateway_http_commons.onresponse has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (12 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_gateway_s3_api.get_bucket (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • leo_gateway_s3_api.get_bucket (cognitive 16) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:232 — leo_gateway_s3_api.get_bucket has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 12 (14 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_manager_console.du (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • leo_manager_console.du (cognitive 16) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:1891 — leo_manager_console.du has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 10 (16 pts) (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl holds 6 of the 11 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 70 of the 93 points over it (75%), 3.3× the next-largest file (apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl at 21). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · leo_manager_ring_sync.sync_ring_1 (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • leo_manager_ring_sync.sync_ring_1 (cognitive 16) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_ring_sync.erl:139 — leo_manager_ring_sync.sync_ring_1 has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (12 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:179 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:179-192 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:243-256 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:326-339 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:367-386 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:201 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:201-217 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:265-281 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_app.erl:197 — apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_app.erl:197-211 | apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_app.erl:262-277 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:435 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:435-450 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:803-818 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl` and `apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14–16 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:695 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:695-708 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1382-1397 — before extracting anything, compare `apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl` and `apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–14 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10–14 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mq_client.erl:80 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mq_client.erl:80-89 | apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_mq.erl:59-72 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:589 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:589-601 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:615-626 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:549 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:549-559 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:733-743 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:182 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:182-190 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:246-254 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:329-337 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:370-378 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:323 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:323-331 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:383-391 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1351-1359 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:419 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:419-425 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:453-458 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:310 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:310-319 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:374-380 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1342-1347 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_app.erl:533 — apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_app.erl:533-537 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_sup.erl:559-563 | apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_app.erl:342-346 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1043 — apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1043-1051 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1187-1196 | apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1305-1311 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Minor — 123 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×56
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_text.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_handler_object.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_mq.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_formatter_json.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_gateway/include/leo_http.hrl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nfs_proto3_server.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_storage/include/leo_storage.hrl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nfs_file_handler.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_app.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_handler_del_directory.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_mnesia.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_api.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_gateway/include/leo_gateway.hrl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_manager/include/leo_manager.hrl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_sup.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_cluster_monitor.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_storage/src/leo_sync_remote_cluster.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_watchdog_sub.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_large_object_put_handler.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_api.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_large_object_get_handler.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_app.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_del_bucket_handler.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file apps/leo_storage/src/leo_sync_local_cluster.erl:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • + 31 more in this group — see findings.md.
M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×40
  • README/code drift README.md:295 — README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists — searched for: `kubernetes`, `k8s`, `helm`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/README.md:70 — docs/README.md links to `a`, but `docs/a` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/index.md:70 — docs/index.md links to `a`, but `docs/a` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/whats_new.md:14 — docs/whats_new.md links to `/admin/settings/environment_config.md`, but `admin/settings/environment_config.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/whats_new.md:15 — docs/whats_new.md links to `/admin/system_admin/migration/`, but `admin/system_admin/migration` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md:17 — docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_gateway.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_gateway.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md:18 — docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md links to `/admin/protocols/s3.md`, but `admin/protocols/s3.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md:19 — docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md links to `/admin/protocols/rest.md`, but `admin/protocols/rest.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md:20 — docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md links to `/admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md`, but `admin/protocols/nfs_v3.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md:21 — docs/architecture/leo_gateway.md links to `/admin/system_operations/s3.md`, but `admin/system_operations/s3.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_manager.md:14 — docs/architecture/leo_manager.md links to `/admin/index_of_commands.md`, but `admin/index_of_commands.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_manager.md:15 — docs/architecture/leo_manager.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_manager.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_manager.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_storage.md:15 — docs/architecture/leo_storage.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_gateway/#cache-consistency-between-leogateway-and-leostorage`, but `admin/settings/leo_gateway` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_storage.md:60 — docs/architecture/leo_storage.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_storage.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_storage.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_storage.md:61 — docs/architecture/leo_storage.md links to `/admin/system_operations/cluster.md`, but `admin/system_operations/cluster.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_storage.md:64 — docs/architecture/leo_storage.md links to `AVS`, but `docs/architecture/AVS` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/architecture/leo_storage.md:65 — docs/architecture/leo_storage.md links to `a`, but `docs/architecture/a` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/benchmark/README.md:139 — docs/benchmark/README.md links to `/installation/quick.md`, but `installation/quick.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/benchmark/README.md:140 — docs/benchmark/README.md links to `/installation/cluster.md`, but `installation/cluster.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/benchmark/README.md:141 — docs/benchmark/README.md links to `/admin/system_operations/s3.md`, but `admin/system_operations/s3.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/installation/cluster.md:223 — docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/setup/planning_for_production.md`, but `admin/setup/planning_for_production.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/installation/cluster.md:224 — docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/settings/environment_config.md`, but `admin/settings/environment_config.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/installation/cluster.md:225 — docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/settings/cluster.md`, but `admin/settings/cluster.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/installation/cluster.md:226 — docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_manager.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_manager.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • README/code drift docs/installation/cluster.md:227 — docs/installation/cluster.md links to `/admin/settings/leo_storage.md`, but `admin/settings/leo_storage.md` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
  • + 15 more in this group — see findings.md.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×13
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Most significant orphaned file · ×3
  • Most significant orphaned file apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_s3_api.erl:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Most significant orphaned file apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_api.erl:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Most significant orphaned file apps/leo_manager/src/leo_manager_console.erl:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×2
  • Duplicated predicate apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl:1375 — `CurPos >= Start andalso (CurPos + ChunkSize - 1) =< End` appears character-identically in 2 files — apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_gateway_http_commons.erl, apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nfs_file_handler.erl. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_handler_sync.erl:139 — `Msg == timeout orelse element(1, Msg) == badrpc` appears character-identically in 2 files — apps/leo_storage/src/leo_storage_handler_sync.erl, apps/leo_storage/src/leo_sync_remote_cluster.erl. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×1
  • Documentation: no project overview docs/faq/limits.md — The FAQ is a wall of features, limits, and related links without an overview stating what LeoFS does or its scope. Add one sentence summarizing the project's purpose (a distributed S3-compatible object store) above the feature list.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 59 of 59 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 59 separate risks. Counted over 59 of the 70 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
X31 · Test-only surface in a production module · Test-only surface in a production module · ×1
  • Test-only surface in a production module apps/leo_gateway/src/leo_nlm_lock_handler_ets.erl:40 — `leo_nlm_lock_handler_ets:test/2` is exported unconditionally and its name IS the test marker, so the shipped module publishes a function named for the test tree. No other module in this repository calls it at any arity. Erlang has no visibility below `-export`, so this is part of the module's public contract: it cannot be changed without a compatibility argument. Nothing tells the next maintainer that its only caller is a test. Wrapping the attribute in `-ifdef(TEST). … -endif.` keeps the test's access and removes it from the shipped module.
Minor — 1 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency hygiene PARTLY measured · ×1
  • Dependency hygiene PARTLY measured — rebar3 pinning read, dependency currency not (no rebar.lock-pinned Hex declaration to grade) — This repository's rebar3 dependencies were read for PINNING discipline: 31 declaration(s) (31 of them runtime rather than profile-scoped) across 3 `rebar.config`, against 0 package(s) pinned by a committed `rebar.lock`. 4 pinning defect(s) are reported as separate rows below. That is only PART of dependency hygiene, so this dimension is NOT SCORED: whether any of these packages has a newer release is the dependency-CURRENCY question, and here hex.pm — which is what answers it — could grade none of these declarations, because currency is asked of a package whose resolved version we actually know and this tree offers 0 such Hex declaration(s) pinned by a committed `rebar.lock`. That is not itself a defect: a git or hg dependency is pinned by a revision and has no Hex release to be behind. A clean pinning pass is NOT an all-clear for these dependencies, and it is not a finding that they are all USED. Note also what is deliberately NOT charged here: a `{ref, …}` or `{tag, …}` git dependency names an immutable point and is the tightest binding rebar3 has, and a `{profiles, [{test, …}]}` dependency is a tool that does not ship. Known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D30 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-2592d1509cad439f99c1a968ac688783/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .2artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-2592d1509cad439f99c1a968ac688783/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .3artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .9artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnone (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)—none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): 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 rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex) — not scanned yet).0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .80artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciesnone (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here)—none (dependency manifest found, not scanned for vulnerabilities here): 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 rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex) — not scanned yet).0—

Run 01a169d7-a154-7c41-88b6-05af2cee7296 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 51 · Warnings: 105 · Recommendations: 123 · Info: 1 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-10-2026 @ 17:38 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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