lepoco/wpfui

Executive summary

lepoco/wpfui scores 61 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture and Maturity at 83, both rated Strong, and Security and Compliance at 74 and Performance at 66, both rated Adequate.

The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 55 and is rated Adequate. Its Security & performance tooling dimension scores 3 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 9 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt and to resolve the 2 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 61 to about 65.

86 findings are critical: 52 in Explicit Debt, 31 in Static Analysis (SAST), two in Project dependency cycles and one in Incompleteness & stubs.

Watchdog couldn't measure 4 dimensions in this code, among them Test Reliability, Dependency Hygiene and IL Efficiency, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 54,952 lines, which would take an estimated 0.4 person-years, around €52,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 58 Adequate, capped by Exception handling Architecture 83 Strong Maturity 83 Strong Production Readiness 55 Adequate, capped by Security & performance tooling and Outbound HTTP resilience Security and Compliance 74 Adequate, capped by Static Analysis (SAST) and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Performance 66 Adequate

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

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

Production Readiness 55 · counts for 46%Code Health 58 · counts for 25%Performance 66 · counts for 14%Security and Compliance 74 · counts for 8%Architecture 83 · counts for 4%Maturity 83 · counts for 2%

If Production Readiness rose from 55 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 61 to about 65.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Business logic 18%Supporting code 81%Tests 1%Generated by tools 0%

New since the last survey: 24 findings

These 24 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026.

Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs
Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs
Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs
Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs
Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/FluentWindow/FluentWindow.cs
Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Cancellation propagation · Async local function without CancellationToken: FetchFontContents src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Program.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async local function without CancellationToken: WriteToFile src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Program.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/FluentWindow/FluentWindow.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs
Stateful singletons · Stateful singleton: ApplicationHostService samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs
Stateful singletons · Stateful singleton: ApplicationHostService src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs
Stateful singletons · Stateful singleton: ApplicationHostService src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs
Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Program.cs
Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/App.xaml.cs

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

Fixed since the last survey: 15 findings

These 15 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Coupling · Off the main sequence: Wpf.Ui.ToastNotifications(net10.0-windows)
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CreateAsync src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Controllers/MonacoController.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SetThemeAsync src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Controllers/MonacoController.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SetLanguageAsync src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Controllers/MonacoController.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SetContentAsync src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Controllers/MonacoController.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: HandleActivationAsync samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: OnShowDialogClick samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Dialogs/MainWindow.xaml.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: HandleActivationAsync src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: HandleActivationAsync src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Wpf.Ui/Extensions/UiElementExtensions.cs
Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Wpf.Ui/Win32/Utilities.cs
Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience

Rebuild cost: about €52,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€17,000 to €86,000, for 291 to 906 hours of work, about 0.4 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.8 at a score of 61. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 54,952 lines of product code
Comment lines	The estimate prices 45,650 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 54,952 lines but aren't priced as work.

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

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 9 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Build.props (3), Wpf.Ui.Gallery.csproj, Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple.csproj.

Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · Explicit Debt

Resolve the 2 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SymbolExtensionsTests.cs (2).

Raises the score by about 3 points · Low effort · Test Quality

Resolve the 12 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs (2), ContentDialogHostController.cs (2), TitleBar.WindowResize.cs (2).

Raises the score by about 4 points · Medium effort · Explicit Debt

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 €52,000 to build again, about 0.4 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 55 (Adequate). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

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

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

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 9 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 4 points for low effort, because it clears the 9 Explicit Debt findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

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

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

75 modules, with 128 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 5 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 35 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 Abstractions	2 Abstractions.Controls	3 Gallery.Effects	4 Input	5 Controls	6 Gallery.ViewModels	7 Appearance	9 Gallery.Models	10 Wpf.Ui	11 Gallery.Controllers	12 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.BasicInput	13 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Collections	14 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.DateAndTime	16 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Layout	17 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Media	18 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.OpSystem	19 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.StatusAndInfo	20 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Text	22 Tray.Internal	25 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.DialogsAndFlyouts	26 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Navigation	27 Gallery.ViewModels.Windows	36 Tray.Controls	40 Tray
1 Abstractions
2 Abstractions.Controls
3 Gallery.Effects
4 Input
5 Controls	2	1		8			4
6 Gallery.ViewModels		1
7 Appearance					4
8 Gallery.Controls				1	6
9 Gallery.Models					3
10 Wpf.Ui	2				17		4
11 Gallery.Controllers							1
12 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.BasicInput					1	14		1
13 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Collections						6		3
14 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.DateAndTime						5		1
15 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.DesignGuidance					1	3		1
16 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Layout						4		1
17 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Media						5		1
18 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.OpSystem						3		1
19 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.StatusAndInfo					2	6		1
20 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Text					1	8		1
21 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Windows						1		1
22 Tray.Internal							1																	2
23 Extensions					8				4
24 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages					1	3	1	1	2
25 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.DialogsAndFlyouts					1	5		1	2
26 Gallery.ViewModels.Pages.Navigation						6		2	1
27 Gallery.ViewModels.Windows						4				1
28 Gallery.Views.Pages.BasicInput		14	1						1		14
29 Gallery.Views.Pages.Collections		6	1						1			6
30 Gallery.Views.Pages.DateAndTime		5	1						1				5
31 Gallery.Views.Pages.Layout		4	1						1					4
32 Gallery.Views.Pages.Media		5	1						1						5
33 Gallery.Views.Pages.OpSystem		3	1						1							3
34 Gallery.Views.Pages.StatusAndInfo		6	1						1								6
35 Gallery.Views.Pages.Text		8	1						1									8
36 Tray.Controls																			1					1
37 Gallery.Views.Pages.DialogsAndFlyouts		5	1						1											5
38 Gallery.Views.Pages.Navigation		7	1						1												7
39 Gallery.Views.Windows					3				3													4
40 Tray																			1				1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 58% · Adequate · gated by X3 ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 8.5 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.4 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.5 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 7.4 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 9.9 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.6

The Bad

D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 6.8 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 6.7 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 5.6

The Ugly

X1 · Repo Async correctness 4.5 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 4.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 3.9

At a glance — Architecture · 83% · Strong ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D7 · .NET / C# Architectural Integrity 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 8.3 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.3 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 9.6 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

The Ugly

AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 4.5

At a glance — Maturity · 83% · Strong ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.9 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 9.6 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 9.0 D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 9.6 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 9.8 D25 · .NET / C# ADR Conformance 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 8.3 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 7.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 9.5

At a glance — Readiness · 55% · Adequate · gated by P3, P7 ·

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 7.9 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 8.0

The Bad

P2 · Repo Observability 5.8

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 3.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 10.0 D37 · .NET / C# Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0

The Ugly

D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 2.8 D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Performance · 66% · Adequate ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 8.5

The Bad

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.1

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2025 — Injection	32	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	8	Medium

Roadmap

First, address explicit technical debt by resolving empty catch blocks in key UI components, disabling analyzer severity overrides in the editor configuration, and cleaning up suppressed warnings in project files. Next, improve test reliability by adding assertions to the identified test file. Finally, integrate a static application security testing step into the continuous integration pipeline to automatically block security regressions.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 9 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Build.props (3), Wpf.Ui.Gallery.csproj, Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple.csproj.	+3.6 pts	Low	Explicit Debt
Resolve the 2 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SymbolExtensionsTests.cs (2).	+3.3 pts	Low	Test Quality
Resolve the 12 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs (2), ContentDialogHostController.cs (2), TitleBar.WindowResize.cs (2).	+3.6 pts	Medium	Explicit Debt
Resolve the 28 AnalyzerSeverityNone finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with .editorconfig (28).	+3.6 pts	Medium	Explicit Debt
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+3.1 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Give every outbound call a bound the caller can rely on: set an explicit `HttpClient.Timeout` (or pass a `CancellationToken` from a `CancellationTokenSource` with a deadline) and flow the caller's own `CancellationToken` through, so a slow endpoint fails fast instead of hanging.	+3.1 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Swallowed exception (empty catch)	+2.1 pts	Medium	Exception handling
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)	+1.7 pts	Medium	Async correctness

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 104 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 10% slop · 44% mixed · 46% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	2.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs	2.4	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs	2.4	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
REDACTED	2.5	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs	3.0	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs	3.1	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs	3.1	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
REDACTED	3.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
src/Wpf.Ui/Win32/Utilities.cs	4.2	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FileScopedPragmaDisable
.editorconfig	4.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: AnalyzerSeverityNone
Directory.Build.props	5.8	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: BareSuppressMessage
src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Base.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs	6.1	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs	6.4	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs	6.4	Mixed	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NumberBox/NumberBox.cs	6.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

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

Critical — 86

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 — 308

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 — 108

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

Could not be resolved — 5

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. 73 of 79 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 6 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — 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 — 79 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D9D10D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D24D25D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36D37D43D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6P7PF1PF2PF3X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 484 of 502 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a167e3-2370-7004-b421-2078eaa6abb8.

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.

D10 Test Quality — 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. The 14 test(s) behind this row are the ones the C# collector could read, and this repository also carries at least 1 test source file(s) (.ts) that it cannot: it parses C# syntax and matches C# test attributes, so a vitest/jest/JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
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 reliability not scored — the test tier(s) ran but surfaced none of this repository's 14 test method(s) to the runner, so flakiness couldn't be exercised. This is an analysis-environment limitation, not a finding about the tests.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: error: The imported project "/usr/share/dotnet/sdk/10.0.400/Microsoft/DesktopBridge/Microsoft.DesktopBridge.props" was not found. Confirm that the expression in the Import declaration "$(WapProjPath)/Microsoft.DesktopBridge.props", which evaluated to "/usr/share/dotnet/sdk/10.0.400/Microsoft/Desktop….
D17 Explicit Debt — 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. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Msbuild failed when processing the file 'src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Wpf.Ui.Gallery.csproj' with message: The URL of repository remote 'origin' is invalid: ''.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Large codebase (53,678 production LoC in the .NET projects) with no declared bounded contexts — cross-boundary type coupling is unassessed Bounded contexts cannot be inferred from a codebase that is not physically organised by them (D-321), so with none declared there are no boundaries for the coupling pass to measure across. You can widen what we reach: name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can 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"]`.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan. 2 of 3 declared ecosystem(s) (npm,osv) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; nuget was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that nuget is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `src/Wpf.Ui.DependencyInjection/DependencyInjectionNavigationViewPageProvider.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Models/AppConfig.cs`, … (+70 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's build of this repository exited 1 and the cause could not be attributed, so no assemblies were produced and there was no IL to read. We do not read it as a defect in the repository: an unattributed failure leans OURS. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
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 Dockerfile (src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Assets/Monaco/min/vs/basic-languages/dockerfile/dockerfile.js). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — 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. 7 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 47.
P1 CI/CD gates — 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. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
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.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D25 ADR Conformance: ADR conformance is the LLM-scored fraction of sampled code that follows recorded decisions — it checks the decisions that were written down and the slices it sampled, not unrecorded rules or the whole tree.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D20, D21, D24, D25, 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 Complexity8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was markdown.renderTabs at 34.

markdown.renderTabs (cyclomatic 34)docs/templates/wpfui/src/markdown.ts:209

toc.renderToc (cyclomatic 30)docs/templates/wpfui/src/toc.ts:18

Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph (cyclomatic 26)src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:54

TitleBar.HwndSourceHook (cyclomatic 25)src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs:654

TitleBar.GetWindowBorderHitTestResult (cyclomatic 19)src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:46

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 8 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with markdown.renderTabs (cyclomatic 34), toc.renderToc (cyclomatic 30), Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph (cyclomatic 26). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 8 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.5 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

16 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph at 93.

Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph (cognitive 93)src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:54

toc.renderToc (cognitive 34)docs/templates/wpfui/src/toc.ts:18

SystemThemeManager.GetCurrentSystemTheme (cognitive 26)src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/SystemThemeManager.cs:60

TitleBar.HwndSourceHook (cognitive 26)src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs:654

toc.json.transformMemberPage (cognitive 24)docs/templates/wpfui/toc.json.js:21

+ 11 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 2 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph (cognitive 93), toc.renderToc (cognitive 34). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 2 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 6.8 to about 8.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 30; a cleaner split scores higher.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.4 / 10Stronggated by 8 serious findings✓ 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: NavigationView · ×3src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Base.cs

ClassTooLong: User32 · ×3src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Interop/User32.cs

FunctionTooLong: markdown.renderTabsdocs/templates/wpfui/src/markdown.ts:209

FileTooLong: Interop/User32.cssrc/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Interop/User32.cs

What to do

Resolve the 3 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with NavigationView.Base.cs, VirtualizingPanelBase.cs, VirtualizingWrapPanel.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with User32.cs, TitleBar.cs, ContentDialog.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with markdown.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 61 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

58 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 1 of the 61 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Duplicated block (34 lines × 2) · ×3src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5748

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Arc/Arc.cs:143

Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:31

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) · ×2src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:302

Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) · ×2src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5123

+ 47 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (34 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with SymbolFilled.cs (2), MainWindow.xaml.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Arc.cs, ColorExtensions.cs, GridViewHeaderRowPresenter.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with BasicInputPage.xaml.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

61 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 38 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D7 · Architectural Integrity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the code respects its intended layering / architecture rules.

Method: Enforcement rung (Prevented/Verified/Documented) per checkable ADR via Roslyn, plus dependency cycles via the engine shared with D5/AX3. Deterministic, exact.

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

All 5 mechanizable ADR(s) are enforced: 5 by analyzers, 0 by tests. Cycles found: 0.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d7_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

15 test methods: 7 unit, 8 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 1 `it`/`test` case(s) across 1 test file(s) declaring at least one beside 14 .NET test method(s); its tier split is read from package names and paths only.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 skipped, 2 zero-assertion, 2 mock references across 14 tests. Measured on the C# suite only — at least 1 test source file(s) (.ts) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

No assertions: GivenAllRegularSymbols_Swap_ReturnsValidFilledSymbol · ×2tests/Wpf.Ui.UnitTests/Extensions/SymbolExtensionsTests.cs:13

Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×2

What to do

Resolve the 2 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with SymbolExtensionsTests.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 128 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 21 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 113 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.9 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs (2×25=50)

Hotspot: src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cssrc/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs:654

What to do

Resolve the 1 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with TitleBar.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

5 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs. Counted over 132 of the 489 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt7.4 / 10Adequategated by 52 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

158 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 53678 LoC in the .NET projects (1.3/KLoC) → score 7.4. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped.

AnalyzerSeverityNone · ×28.editorconfig:353

EmptyCatchBlock · ×12src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs:398

NoWarnInCsproj · ×9src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Wpf.Ui.Gallery.csproj:12

FileScopedPragmaDisable · ×3src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/PasswordBox/PasswordHelper.cs:11

TodoComment · ×61src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Controllers/MonacoController.cs:38

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

What to do

Resolve the 28 AnalyzerSeverityNone finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with .editorconfig (28). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (28 issue-level).
Resolve the 12 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs (2), ContentDialogHostController.cs (2), TitleBar.WindowResize.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
Resolve the 9 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Build.props (3), Wpf.Ui.Gallery.csproj, Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.

Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.

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

58 projects, 1927 source files, 53257 hand-written lines of code (52746 production / 511 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), plus 70 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 46 inter-project edges.

Thin analysable surface across projects: Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blanksrc/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank.csproj

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ 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 Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The repository's root README and the docs/architecture/README.md are both excellent at describing what WPF UI is (Fluent design for WPF, 77+ controls, themes, navigation), its license, support plans, and a gallery app. The architecture documentation is comprehensive: it lists every visible section in an outline table and covers topics like the six-layer core library structure, dependency injection, Win32 interop, and cross-cutting concerns with SDD documents. There are no clipped sections to flag as missing; all visible content is present and well-structured. The project's documentation is comprehensive and well-structured: the README files alone cover 11 directories with clear descriptions of each, plus architecture/Docs markdown covering 40 modules (including Wpf.Ui.Abstractions, Wpf.Ui.DependencyInjection, and Wpf.Ui.FontMapper) and a dedicated Testing Specification for AI Agents. The XML-doc coverage is low (<25%) but the visible content is exemplary — every document in the set has an overview, installation/build/usage section, and contribution guidance; none are clipped.

XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Gallery · ×17src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Wpf.Ui.Gallery.csproj

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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 Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Evaluated 5 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 9.6/10 (consistently complete and clear). 0 flagged with a specific gap.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment ValueExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

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

85 valuable / 0 redundant across 200 sampled comments.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D25 · ADR ConformanceExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the code actually follows the decisions recorded in the project's ADRs.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature against ADRs plus a deterministic structural code summary; findings linked to repo-rooted ADR paths for traceability. Advisory.

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

2 conform / 0 violate across 5 ADRs.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d25_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion8.3 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 of 23 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

89 % of calls cross a namespace and 5 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: large — vertical-slice locality expected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.8 / 10Weak✓ 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 2.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

32 finding(s): 0 critical, 31 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 24 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 80 file(s) — `samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Dialogs/App.xaml.cs` (line 8), `samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs` (line 13), `samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/ViewModels/MainWindowViewModel.cs` (line 67), `src/Wpf.Ui.DependencyInjection/DependencyInjectionNavigationViewPageProvider.cs` (line 13), `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs` (line 9), … (+75 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 12 of those file(s) — `samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.DependencyInjection/DependencyInjectionNavigationViewPageProvider.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.FlaUI/AutoSuggestBox.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ControlsLookup/GalleryPageAttribute.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/DashboardViewModel.cs`, … (+7 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 0 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 24 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (24 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 2 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm,osv). Partial dependency scan: 2 of 3 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm,osv), and the findings above are real and complete for them. nuget was not scanned (nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness8.3 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

22 of 132 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs. Counted over 132 of the 489 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×22src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:1

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

What to do

Resolve the 22 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs, ContentDialogHostBehavior.cs, ContentDialogHost.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (22 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Orphaned files with no living knowledge 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

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

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 19 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

`MainWindow` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_isPaneOpenedOrClosedFromCode, _isUserClosedPane; e.g. `_isPaneOpenedOrClosedFromCode` at line 156). — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:13
`NavigationService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (NavigationControl; e.g. `NavigationControl` at line 30). — src/Wpf.Ui/NavigationService.cs:14
`SnackbarService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_presenter, _snackbar; e.g. `_presenter` at line 25). — src/Wpf.Ui/SnackbarService.cs:13
`ContentDialogService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_dialogHost, _dialogHostEx; e.g. `_dialogHost` at line 67). — src/Wpf.Ui/ContentDialogService.cs:33
`SettingsViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (CurrentApplicationTheme, AppVersion, _isInitialized; e.g. `CurrentApplicationTheme` at line 49). — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs:12
`ApplicationHostService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_navigationWindow; e.g. `_navigationWindow` at line 44). — samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:13
`DashboardViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (Counter; e.g. `Counter` at line 16). — samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/ViewModels/DashboardViewModel.cs:8
`DataViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_isInitialized; e.g. `_isInitialized` at line 48). — samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/ViewModels/DataViewModel.cs:11
`SettingsViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (CurrentApplicationTheme, AppVersion, _isInitialized; e.g. `CurrentApplicationTheme` at line 31). — samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/ViewModels/SettingsViewModel.cs:8
`ApplicationHostService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_navigationWindow; e.g. `_navigationWindow` at line 48). (×2) — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:12, src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:12
`DataViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_isInitialized; e.g. `_isInitialized` at line 46). (×2) — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/ViewModels/Pages/DataViewModel.cs:7, src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/ViewModels/Pages/DataViewModel.cs:7
`SettingsViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_isInitialized; e.g. `_isInitialized` at line 31). (×2) — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs:6, src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs:6

What to do

Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

The namespaces Wpf.Ui.Appearance ↔ Wpf.Ui.Controls depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Wpf.Ui.Appearance → Wpf.Ui.Controls (Wpf.Ui.Appearance.ApplicationThemeManager → Wpf.Ui.Controls.WindowBackdropType, 4 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationThemeManager.cs:6
The namespaces Wpf.Ui.Tray ↔ Wpf.Ui.Tray.Controls ↔ Wpf.Ui.Tray.Internal depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Wpf.Ui.Tray → Wpf.Ui.Tray.Controls (Wpf.Ui.Tray.RoutedNotifyIconEvent → Wpf.Ui.Tray.Controls.NotifyIcon, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/RoutedNotifyIconEvent.cs:7

What to do

Break namespace cycles inside a project by moving the shared type to a namespace both sides can use, or by inverting the back edge behind an interface.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX6 · Interface segregation9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

`INavigationView` declares 47 members: `Header`, `HeaderVisibility`, `AlwaysShowHeader`, `MenuItems`, `MenuItemsSource`, `FooterMenuItems`, `FooterMenuItemsSource`, `IsTopSeparatorVisible`, `IsFooterSeparatorVisible`, `SelectedItem`, `ContentOverlay`, `IsBackEnabled`, `IsBackButtonVisible`, `IsPaneToggleVisible`, `IsPaneOpen`, `IsPaneVisible`, `OpenPaneLength`, `CompactPaneLength`, `PaneHeader`, `PaneTitle`, `PaneFooter`, `PaneDisplayMode`, `TitleBar`, `AutoSuggestBox`, `BreadcrumbBar`, `ItemTemplate`, `TransitionDuration`, `Transition`, `FrameMargin`, `PaneOpened`, `PaneClosed`, `SelectionChanged`, `ItemInvoked`, `BackRequested`, `Navigating`, `Navigated`, `CanGoBack`, `Navigate`, `Navigate`, `NavigateWithHierarchy`, and 7 more. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. Those 47 declarations carry 45 distinct name(s), so part of the width is overloading rather than separate responsibilities — but 45 operations clears the >15 bar on its own, so the row is about responsibilities, not signatures. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/INavigationView.cs:20
`INavigationViewItem` declares 17 members: `Id`, `Content`, `Icon`, `MenuItems`, `MenuItemsSource`, `IsActive`, `IsExpanded`, `TargetPageTag`, `TargetPageType`, `InfoBadge`, `NavigationCacheMode`, `Template`, `NavigationViewItemParent`, `Click`, `IsMenuElement`, `Activate`, `Deactivate`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/INavigationViewItem.cs:18

What to do

Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×23) — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Helpers/NullToVisibilityConverter.cs:15, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Navigation.cs:129, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:64, …

What to do

Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

`Headers_CollectionChanged` is a shipped member whose body only throws — and it is REACHED: src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:56 references it. This is not dead surface that can be deleted — anything taking that path throws at runtime. Implement the member, or remove the code that reaches it. — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:64
`SetServiceProvider` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:60, src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:60
`OnStringSelected` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/Navigation/BreadcrumbBarViewModel.cs:41
`OnMenuAction` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Windows/MonacoWindowViewModel.cs:34
`Show` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Wpf.Ui.ToastNotifications/Toast.cs:16
`GoForward` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Navigation.cs:129
4 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×6) — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:27, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:32, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:210, …
11 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×3) — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:39, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:51, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:63
3 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×3) — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:134, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:141, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ClientAreaBorder/ClientAreaBorder.cs:48
9 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×2) — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:159, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:169
5 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×2) — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:190, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:204
7 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:196
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×13) — src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Internal/InternalNotifyIconManager.cs:186, src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Interop/User32.cs:1043, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/FluentWindow/FluentWindow.cs:283, …
`ToggleAllExpands` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Base.cs:234
`Initialize` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TextBlock/TextBlockMetadata.cs:82
A `#pragma warning disable` with no error codes silences every warning for the rest of the file — hidden debt. Suppress specific codes with a justification instead. — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:70

What to do

Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add a README to the 13 of 20 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.3 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation7.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

What to do

Grow the ADR log (currently 5) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy9.5 / 10Exemplary◐ 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.

docs/index.md links to `/documentation/getting-started.html`, but `documentation/getting-started.html` 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:130
docs/architecture/IMPLEMENTATION-GUIDE.md names `src/Wpf.Ui/Assets/Toolbox/MyControl.bmp`, but no file or folder `src/Wpf.Ui/Assets/Toolbox/MyControl.bmp` exists. 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/IMPLEMENTATION-GUIDE.md:261
docs/architecture/RECOMMENDATIONS.md names `src/Wpf.Ui/Services/`, but no file or folder `src/Wpf.Ui/Services` exists. 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/RECOMMENDATIONS.md:14
docs/architecture/TESTING-SPEC.md names `tests/Wpf.Ui.UnitTests/Usings.cs`, but no file or folder `tests/Wpf.Ui.UnitTests/Usings.cs` exists. 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/TESTING-SPEC.md:105
docs/documentation/accent.md documents the environment variable `WM_WININICHANGE`, 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. — docs/documentation/accent.md:211
docs/documentation/extension.md links to `/documentation/getting-started`, but `documentation/getting-started` 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/documentation/extension.md:38
docs/documentation/index.md links to `/documentation/nuget.html`, but `documentation/nuget.html` 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/documentation/index.md:24
docs/documentation/index.md links to `/documentation/extension.html`, but `documentation/extension.html` 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/documentation/index.md:30
docs/documentation/index.md links to `/documentation/getting-started.html`, but `documentation/getting-started.html` 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/documentation/index.md:34
docs/documentation/nuget.md links to `/documentation/getting-started.html`, but `documentation/getting-started.html` 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/documentation/nuget.md:31

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: docs/index.md links to `/documentation/getting-started.html`, but `documentation/getting-started.html` does not exist; docs/architecture/IMPLEMENTATION-GUIDE.md names `src/Wpf.Ui/Assets/Toolbox/MyControl.bmp`, but no file or folder `src/Wpf.Ui/Assets/Toolbox/MyControl.bmp` exists; docs/architecture/RECOMMENDATIONS.md names `src/Wpf.Ui/Services/`, but no file or folder `src/Wpf.Ui/Services` exists; docs/architecture/TESTING-SPEC.md names `tests/Wpf.Ui.UnitTests/Usings.cs`, but no file or folder `tests/Wpf.Ui.UnitTests/Usings.cs` exists; docs/documentation/accent.md documents the environment variable `WM_WININICHANGE`, but no code, script or configuration file names it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`dotnet test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability5.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 6/10 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 10, 6 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling3.0 / 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.

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 7067 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Dependabot is configured but does not watch `npm` — add that `package-ecosystem` entry to REDACTED so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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

Make sure a person approves each release. The release job names an environment, but its approval rules live in the code host's settings, where Watchdog can't see them. Check that a reviewer must approve each release, or publish releases as drafts first, so a bad build can be stopped before anyone downloads it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either the distinct `x.y.z` versions it names (a link's target is not counted) or its version-shaped section headings (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.

What to do

Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

`new HttpClient()` builds an outbound HTTP client and nothing bounds it: no timeout is set on it and no retry or resilience policy wraps its calls in the type that owns it. This codebase ships libraries/tools rather than a service it operates, so the failure lands as a hung caller — a build step, a CLI run, a UI thread — with no way out. — src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Program.cs:69

What to do

Give every outbound call a bound the caller can rely on: set an explicit `HttpClient.Timeout` (or pass a `CancellationToken` from a `CancellationTokenSource` with a deadline) and flow the caller's own `CancellationToken` through, so a slow endpoint fails fast instead of hanging.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

Add a benchmarking harness for the hot paths and run it in CI to catch regressions (for .NET, a BenchmarkDotNet project with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations).

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 8 use(s) across 55,207 production line(s) (~0.1/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

1 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
`.Wait()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one). — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/App.xaml.cs:94

What to do

Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult().

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/App.xaml.cs:94
`async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained. (×11) — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DynamicScrollViewer/DynamicScrollViewer.cs:121, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DynamicScrollViewer/DynamicScrollViewer.cs:146, samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/App.xaml.cs:82, …

What to do

Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`bitmap` is a `Bitmap`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 102). Every use of it in `FromSource` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var bitmap = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Hicon.cs:102
`InternalNotifyIconManager` declares a finalizer (line 70), but nothing in the type is unmanaged: no `IntPtr`/`UIntPtr` or pointer field, no `SafeHandle`, no `HandleRef`, no `extern`/`DllImport` member and no `Marshal`/`GCHandle`/`NativeMemory` use. A finalizer can only release what the garbage collector cannot, so on a purely-managed type it releases nothing and costs something: every instance is put on the finalizer queue, survives at least one extra collection, and is then finalized on a thread that is NOT the disposing one — where the managed objects it touches may already have been finalized themselves. Delete the finalizer (and the `GC.SuppressFinalize` that exists to defuse it); if a handle is added later, wrap it in a `SafeHandle`, which brings its own correct finalization. — src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Internal/InternalNotifyIconManager.cs:70

What to do

Each finding names the value and the span that decides who owns it — the `new` that created it, or the constructor parameter that handed it over. Confirm ownership from that span, then make the disposal match it: release what this type created, leave what it was injected with to whoever created THAT, and drop a finalizer whose type holds nothing unmanaged to release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Only 9/34 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×22) — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/ContentDialogViewModel.cs:18, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/ContentDialogViewModel.cs:40, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/MessageBoxViewModel.cs:21, …
No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/SnackbarPresenter.cs:119
Neither takes a CancellationToken nor reads the one of the function it sits in, while it calls something that takes one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Take the token, or pass on the enclosing one. (×2) — src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Program.cs:67, src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Program.cs:101

What to do

Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling3.9 / 10Weak✓ 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.

An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×12) — src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs:398, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs:546, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:276, …
`catch (Exception) when (…)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch. — src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs:424
`catch` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch. (×2) — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/SnackbarPresenter.cs:129, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:183

What to do

Swallowed exception (empty catch)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

This method contradicts itself about `mainWindow`: line 55 writes `mainWindow?.Show`, which says `mainWindow` can be null, but line 54 then dereferences it directly as `mainWindow.Loaded` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `mainWindow` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `mainWindow` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side. — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:54
~0.5 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 78 suppression(s) across the 167332 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

Where a method uses `?.` on a symbol and then dereferences it directly, settle the question once: test it before the first use and handle null, or drop the `?.`.
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	58%	Adequate — gated by X3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	83%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	83%	Strong	Strongest area.
Readiness	55%	Adequate — gated by P3, P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	74%	Adequate — gated by D29, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	66%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.

Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

X10 Duplicated predicate — 6 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 1 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.

P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 40 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 user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC2 Forms & labels — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC3 Page structure — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; 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 — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D11 Test Reliability — Test runner surfaced no tests
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Cross-context type coupling could not be assessed — this codebase's bounded contexts are neither declared nor inferable.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 75 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the .NET half could not be measured — no coverage produced (collector absent, or test run exceeded the inline budget); the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — the jest suite in docs/templates/ ran and not one test passed (FAIL wpfui/src/helper.test.ts), so the coverage would describe the failed run, not the code. This repository's production source spans both ecosystems, and no partial figure is published as if it were the whole: coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (6 CQRS handler(s))
ED5 Idempotency — 6 mutating command handler(s)/consumer(s) detected and 12 handler method(s) walked, but no persistent write was recognised in any of them — idempotency not assessed
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
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'.
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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 — 86 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · AnalyzerSeverityNone · ×28

AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:353 — MC3080 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:358 — SA1009 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:361 — SA1000 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:362 — SA1011 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:366 — SA1101 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:367 — SA1118 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:368 — SA1200 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:369 — SA1201 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:370 — SA1202 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:371 — SA1309 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:372 — SA1310 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:375 — SA1313 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:378 — SA1314 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:381 — SA1413 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:383 — SA1600 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:384 — SA1602 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:385 — SA1611 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:388 — SA1629 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:390 — SA1633 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:391 — SA1634 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:392 — SA1652 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:396 — SA1111 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:397 — SA1121 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:398 — SA1204 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:399 — SA1208 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
+ 3 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · 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

D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×12

EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs:398 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:276 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:316 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs:546 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs:333 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs:508 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/FluentWindow/FluentWindow.cs:317 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:146 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:218 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs:127 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs:281 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Wpf.Ui/UiApplication.cs:109 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.

D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×9

NoWarnInCsproj src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Wpf.Ui.Gallery.csproj:12 — SA1601 — this project generates an XML documentation file as a build output, so its documentation is something it PUBLISHES to whoever consumes the assembly, and this entry switches off a rule whose only job is to report that documentation missing or malformed. The two decisions sit in the same file and the quiet one wins: the documentation this project ships has holes exactly where the rule would have pointed, no build says so, and the people who meet the gap are downstream — in their editor, at the moment they are trying to use the member. Write the documentation the rule is asking for and drop the code from the list; where only some elements genuinely cannot carry it, narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rest of the API stays covered. If the documentation was never meant to be consumed, the honest fix is the other line — stop generating the file, so the project no longer publishes something it is choosing not to check.
NoWarnInCsproj samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple.csproj:10 — SA1601 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.SetResources.Simple/Wpf.Ui.Demo.SetResources.Simple.csproj:10 — SA1601 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm.csproj:10 — SA1601 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Dialogs/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Dialogs.csproj:10 — SA1601 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Console/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Console.csproj:8 — SA1601 — this project generates an XML documentation file as a build output, so its documentation is something it PUBLISHES to whoever consumes the assembly, and this entry switches off a rule whose only job is to report that documentation missing or malformed. The two decisions sit in the same file and the quiet one wins: the documentation this project ships has holes exactly where the rule would have pointed, no build says so, and the people who meet the gap are downstream — in their editor, at the moment they are trying to use the member. Write the documentation the rule is asking for and drop the code from the list; where only some elements genuinely cannot carry it, narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rest of the API stays covered. If the documentation was never meant to be consumed, the honest fix is the other line — stop generating the file, so the project no longer publishes something it is choosing not to check.
NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:44 — CS8500 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:84 — CS8002 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:84 — SA0001 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D17 · Explicit Debt · FileScopedPragmaDisable · ×3

FileScopedPragmaDisable src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/PasswordBox/PasswordHelper.cs:11 — #pragma warning disable SA1601 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/Wpf.Ui/Win32/Utilities.cs:6 — #pragma warning disable CS8601 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/Wpf.Ui/Win32/Utilities.cs:7 — #pragma warning disable CS8625 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.

AX3 · Project dependency cycles · Namespace dependency cycle · ×2

Namespace dependency cycle src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationThemeManager.cs:6 — The namespaces Wpf.Ui.Appearance ↔ Wpf.Ui.Controls depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Wpf.Ui.Appearance → Wpf.Ui.Controls (Wpf.Ui.Appearance.ApplicationThemeManager → Wpf.Ui.Controls.WindowBackdropType, 4 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
Namespace dependency cycle src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/RoutedNotifyIconEvent.cs:7 — The namespaces Wpf.Ui.Tray ↔ Wpf.Ui.Tray.Controls ↔ Wpf.Ui.Tray.Internal depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Wpf.Ui.Tray → Wpf.Ui.Tray.Controls (Wpf.Ui.Tray.RoutedNotifyIconEvent → Wpf.Ui.Tray.Controls.NotifyIcon, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Unfinished stub · ×1

Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:64 — `Headers_CollectionChanged` is a shipped member whose body only throws — and it is REACHED: src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:56 references it. This is not dead surface that can be deleted — anything taking that path throws at runtime. Implement the member, or remove the code that reaches it.

Serious — 308 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×61

TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Controllers/MonacoController.cs:38 — // TODO: Parse theme from 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.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Controls/PageControlDocumentation.xaml.cs:145 — // TODO: Refactor switch — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:6 — // TODO: This class is work in progress. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:210 — // TODO: Auto detected — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui.ToastNotifications/Toast.cs:18 — // TODO: Implement native Toast without external libraries — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Hicon.cs:6 — // TODO: This class is the only reason for using System.Drawing.Common. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/TrayManager.cs:11 — * TODO: Handle closing of the parent window. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs:896 — // TODO: Handle negative values — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DynamicScrollViewer/DynamicScrollViewer.cs:123 — // TODO: Optimize — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DynamicScrollViewer/DynamicScrollViewer.cs:148 — // TODO: Optimize — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/IconElement/IconSourceElement.cs:36 — // TODO: Come up with an elegant solution — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Base.cs:114 — // TODO: Refresh — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Base.cs:179 — // TODO: Update reveal — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Base.cs:236 — // TODO: When shift clicked on navigationviewitem — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Base.cs:429 — // TODO: Element or content? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NumberBox/NumberBox.cs:8 — // TODO: Mask (with placeholder); Clipboard paste; — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NumberBox/NumberBox.cs:9 — // TODO: Constant decimals when formatting. Although this can actually be done with NumberFormatter. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NumberBox/NumberBox.cs:10 — // TODO: Disable expression by default — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NumberBox/NumberBox.cs:11 — // TODO: Lock to digit characters only by property — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NumberBox/NumberBox.cs:416 — // TODO: Fix clipboard — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/Snackbar.cs:6 — /* TODO: Refactor as popup, detach from the window renderer */ — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/SnackbarPresenter.cs:80 — // TODO: Fix detached process — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBarButton.cs:236 — // TODO: Incorrectly calculates mouse position for high DPI displays. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/ProgressThicknessConverter.cs:6 — /* TODO: It's too hardcoded, we should define better formula. */ — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Wpf.Ui/Extensions/ContextMenuExtensions.cs:40 — // TODO: Needs more work with the Popup service — 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.
+ 36 more in this group — see findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×27

CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Program.cs:32 — 12 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:27 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:32 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:210 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:195 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Navigation.cs:133 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Navigation.cs:140 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBarButton.cs:254 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:27 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:72 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:77 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:100 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:39 — 11 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:51 — 11 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:63 — 11 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:134 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:141 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ClientAreaBorder/ClientAreaBorder.cs:48 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:58 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:159 — 9 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:169 — 9 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:190 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:204 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:47 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
CommentedOutCode src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:196 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
+ 2 more in this group — see findings.md.

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code · Unfinished stub · ×23

Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Helpers/NullToVisibilityConverter.cs:15 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Navigation.cs:129 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TreeGrid/TreeGrid.cs:64 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/AnimationFactorToValueConverter.cs:32 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/BackButtonVisibilityToVisibilityConverter.cs:25 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/BoolToVisibilityConverter.cs:17 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/BrushToColorConverter.cs:34 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/ClipConverter.cs:35 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/DatePickerButtonPaddingConverter.cs:29 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/EnumToBoolConverter.cs:28 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/FallbackBrushConverter.cs:22 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/IconSourceElementConverter.cs:42 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/LeftSplitCornerRadiusConverter.cs:22 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/LeftSplitThicknessConverter.cs:22 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/NullToVisibilityConverter.cs:17 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/ProgressThicknessConverter.cs:24 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/RightSplitCornerRadiusConverter.cs:22 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/RightSplitThicknessConverter.cs:22 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Converters/TextToAsteriskConverter.cs:17 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui.ToastNotifications/Toast.cs:16 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Views/MainWindow.xaml.cs:57 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:60 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:60 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken · ×22

Async method without CancellationToken: OnShowDialog src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/ContentDialogViewModel.cs:18 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnShowSignInContentDialog src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/ContentDialogViewModel.cs:40 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnOpenCustomMessageBox src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/MessageBoxViewModel.cs:21 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnCopyTextToClipboard src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/OpSystem/ClipboardViewModel.cs:20 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: InitializeEditorAsync src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Windows/MonacoWindowViewModel.cs:37 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateScrollAsync src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DynamicScrollBar/DynamicScrollBar.cs:97 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateVerticalScrollingState src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DynamicScrollViewer/DynamicScrollViewer.cs:121 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateHorizontalScrollingState src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DynamicScrollViewer/DynamicScrollViewer.cs:146 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ShowAsync src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/Snackbar.cs:287 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ImmediatelyDisplay src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/SnackbarPresenter.cs:84 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: HideCurrent src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/SnackbarPresenter.cs:92 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ShowQueuedSnackbarsAsync src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/SnackbarPresenter.cs:104 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: HidSnackbar src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/SnackbarPresenter.cs:142 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnStartup samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/App.xaml.cs:82 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnExit samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/App.xaml.cs:90 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ShowSampleDialogAsync samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Dialogs/MainWindow.xaml.cs:27 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnStartup src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs:40 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnExit src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs:48 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnStartup src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs:68 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnExit src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs:76 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnStartup src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/App.xaml.cs:68 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: OnExit src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/App.xaml.cs:76 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.

AX2 · Stateful singletons · Stateful singleton · ×15

Stateful singleton: MainWindow src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:13 — `MainWindow` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_isPaneOpenedOrClosedFromCode, _isUserClosedPane; e.g. `_isPaneOpenedOrClosedFromCode` at line 156).
Stateful singleton: NavigationService src/Wpf.Ui/NavigationService.cs:14 — `NavigationService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (NavigationControl; e.g. `NavigationControl` at line 30).
Stateful singleton: SnackbarService src/Wpf.Ui/SnackbarService.cs:13 — `SnackbarService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_presenter, _snackbar; e.g. `_presenter` at line 25).
Stateful singleton: ContentDialogService src/Wpf.Ui/ContentDialogService.cs:33 — `ContentDialogService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_dialogHost, _dialogHostEx; e.g. `_dialogHost` at line 67).
Stateful singleton: SettingsViewModel src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs:12 — `SettingsViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (CurrentApplicationTheme, AppVersion, _isInitialized; e.g. `CurrentApplicationTheme` at line 49).
Stateful singleton: ApplicationHostService samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:13 — `ApplicationHostService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_navigationWindow; e.g. `_navigationWindow` at line 44).
Stateful singleton: DashboardViewModel samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/ViewModels/DashboardViewModel.cs:8 — `DashboardViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (Counter; e.g. `Counter` at line 16).
Stateful singleton: DataViewModel samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/ViewModels/DataViewModel.cs:11 — `DataViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_isInitialized; e.g. `_isInitialized` at line 48).
Stateful singleton: SettingsViewModel samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/ViewModels/SettingsViewModel.cs:8 — `SettingsViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (CurrentApplicationTheme, AppVersion, _isInitialized; e.g. `CurrentApplicationTheme` at line 31).
Stateful singleton: ApplicationHostService src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:12 — `ApplicationHostService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_navigationWindow; e.g. `_navigationWindow` at line 48).
Stateful singleton: DataViewModel src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/ViewModels/Pages/DataViewModel.cs:7 — `DataViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_isInitialized; e.g. `_isInitialized` at line 46).
Stateful singleton: SettingsViewModel src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs:6 — `SettingsViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_isInitialized; e.g. `_isInitialized` at line 31).
Stateful singleton: ApplicationHostService src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:12 — `ApplicationHostService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_navigationWindow; e.g. `_navigationWindow` at line 48).
Stateful singleton: DataViewModel src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/ViewModels/Pages/DataViewModel.cs:7 — `DataViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_isInitialized; e.g. `_isInitialized` at line 46).
Stateful singleton: SettingsViewModel src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs:6 — `SettingsViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_isInitialized; e.g. `_isInitialized` at line 31).

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) · ×12

Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs:398 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs:546 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:276 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:316 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs:333 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs:508 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/FluentWindow/FluentWindow.cs:317 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:146 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:218 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs:127 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs:281 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Wpf.Ui/UiApplication.cs:109 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.

X1 · Async correctness · async void method · ×11

async void method: UpdateVerticalScrollingState src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DynamicScrollViewer/DynamicScrollViewer.cs:121 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
async void method: UpdateHorizontalScrollingState src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DynamicScrollViewer/DynamicScrollViewer.cs:146 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
async void method: OnStartup samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/App.xaml.cs:82 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
async void method: OnExit samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/App.xaml.cs:90 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
async void method: OnShowDialogClick samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Dialogs/MainWindow.xaml.cs:21 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
async void method: OnStartup src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs:40 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
async void method: OnExit src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs:48 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
async void method: OnStartup src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs:68 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
async void method: OnExit src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs:76 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
async void method: OnStartup src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/App.xaml.cs:68 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.
async void method: OnExit src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/App.xaml.cs:76 — `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained.

D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×8

BarePragmaDisable src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:16 — #pragma warning disable IDE0008 // Use explicit type instead of 'var' — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHost.cs:13 — #pragma warning disable IDE0008 // Use explicit type instead of 'var' — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostBehavior.cs:13 — #pragma warning disable IDE0008 // Use explicit type instead of 'var' — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs:15 — #pragma warning disable IDE0008 // Use explicit type instead of 'var' — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable tests/Wpf.Ui.Gallery.IntegrationTests/ContentDialogAutomationTests.cs:10 — #pragma warning disable IDE0008 // Use explicit type instead of 'var' — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:12 — #pragma warning disable CS1591 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:12 — #pragma warning disable CS1591 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:70 — #pragma warning disable — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.

D17 · Explicit Debt · BareSuppressMessage · ×4

BareSuppressMessage samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/ViewModels/MainWindowViewModel.cs:27 — System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:201 — System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Wpf.Ui/Markup/Design.cs:59 — System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage src/Wpf.Ui/Markup/Design.cs:76 — System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.

D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithCallers · ×4

ObsoleteWithCallers src/Wpf.Ui/ContentDialogService.cs:71 — [Obsolete] GetDialogHost
ObsoleteWithCallers src/Wpf.Ui/IContentDialogService.cs:70 — [Obsolete] GetDialogHost
ObsoleteWithCallers src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs:516 — [Obsolete] .ctor
ObsoleteWithCallers src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs:618 — [Obsolete] DialogHost

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Unfinished stub · ×4

Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:60 — `SetServiceProvider` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:60 — `SetServiceProvider` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui.ToastNotifications/Toast.cs:16 — `Show` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Navigation.cs:129 — `GoForward` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×3

TooManyMethods: NavigationView src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Base.cs — TooManyMethods — 1023 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 81 methods, declared across 6 files: NavigationView/NavigationView.Base.cs (31), NavigationView/NavigationView.Navigation.cs (26), NavigationView/NavigationView.Properties.cs (11), NavigationView/NavigationView.Events.cs (7), +2 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 51 over it, 2.70× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: VirtualizingPanelBase src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/VirtualizingWrapPanel/VirtualizingPanelBase.cs — TooManyMethods — 277 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 38 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 8 over it, 1.27× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: VirtualizingWrapPanel src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/VirtualizingWrapPanel/VirtualizingWrapPanel.cs — TooManyMethods — 265 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×3

ClassTooLong: User32 src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Interop/User32.cs — ClassTooLong — 689 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 59 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 289 over it, 1.72× the bar. Its members are declarations rather than behaviour over shared data — the type holds no instance state — so there is nothing to group them by and nothing to delegate. To reduce it, split it by area instead: move each cohesive group of declarations onto its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
ClassTooLong: TitleBar src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs — ClassTooLong — 513 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 24 methods, declared across 2 files: TitleBar/TitleBar.cs (15), TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs (9). The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 113 over it, 1.28× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: ContentDialog src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs — ClassTooLong — 489 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 26 methods, declared across 2 files: ContentDialog/ContentDialog.cs (18), ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs (8). The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 89 over it, 1.22× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (34 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (34 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5748 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5748-5781 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5737-5770 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (34 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6154 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6154-6187 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:6128-6161 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (34 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:30 — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:30-63 | src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs:30-63 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Views/Windows/MainWindow.xaml.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Arc/Arc.cs:143 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Arc/Arc.cs:143-153 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Arc/Arc.cs:161-171 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Arc/Arc.cs:143` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Extensions/ColorExtensions.cs:202 — src/Wpf.Ui/Extensions/ColorExtensions.cs:202-212 | src/Wpf.Ui/Extensions/ColorExtensions.cs:257-267 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `color` to `float Lightness) ToHsl(this Color` in one and `float Value) ToHsv(this Color` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/GridView/GridViewHeaderRowPresenter.cs:24 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/GridView/GridViewHeaderRowPresenter.cs:24-34 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/GridView/GridViewRowPresenter.cs:16-26 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×3

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs:424 — `catch (Exception) when (…)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/SnackbarPresenter.cs:129 — `catch` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:183 — `catch` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×2

No assertions: GivenAllRegularSymbols_Swap_ReturnsValidFilledSymbol tests/Wpf.Ui.UnitTests/Extensions/SymbolExtensionsTests.cs:13 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: GivenAllFilledSymbols_Swap_ReturnsValidRegularSymbol tests/Wpf.Ui.UnitTests/Extensions/SymbolExtensionsTests.cs:22 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2

Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:31 — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:31-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Collections/CollectionsPage.xaml.cs:31-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DateAndTime/DateAndTimePage.xaml.cs:31-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/DialogsAndFlyoutsPage.xaml.cs:31-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Layout/LayoutPage.xaml.cs:31-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Media/MediaPage.xaml.cs:31-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Navigation/NavigationPage.xaml.cs:31-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/OpSystem/OpSystemPage.xaml.cs:31-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/StatusAndInfo/StatusAndInfoPage.xaml.cs:31-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Text/TextPage.xaml.cs:31-58 — These 10 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 10 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 10 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:61 — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:61-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Collections/CollectionsPage.xaml.cs:61-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DateAndTime/DateAndTimePage.xaml.cs:61-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/DialogsAndFlyoutsPage.xaml.cs:61-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Layout/LayoutPage.xaml.cs:61-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Media/MediaPage.xaml.cs:61-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Navigation/NavigationPage.xaml.cs:61-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/OpSystem/OpSystemPage.xaml.cs:61-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/StatusAndInfo/StatusAndInfoPage.xaml.cs:61-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Text/TextPage.xaml.cs:61-75 — These 10 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 10 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 10 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:302 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:302-327 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs:494-519 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/ViewModels/Pages/DataViewModel.cs:22 — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/ViewModels/Pages/DataViewModel.cs:22-47 | src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/ViewModels/Pages/DataViewModel.cs:22-47 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/ViewModels/Pages/DataViewModel.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/ViewModels/Pages/DataViewModel.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5123 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5123-5146 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5121-5144 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (24 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6189 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6189-6212 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:6163-6186 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (7 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Extensions/ColorExtensions.cs:362 — src/Wpf.Ui/Extensions/ColorExtensions.cs:362-368 | src/Wpf.Ui/Extensions/ColorExtensions.cs: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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Controls/NotifyIcon.cs:479 — src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Controls/NotifyIcon.cs:479-485 | src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/NotifyIconService.cs:116-122 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs:29 — samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs:29-37 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs:27-35 — before extracting anything, compare `samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs:26 — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs:26-34 | src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs:26-34 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Empty method body · ×2

Empty method body — does nothing with its inputs src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Pages/Navigation/BreadcrumbBarViewModel.cs:41 — `OnStringSelected` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it.
Empty method body — does nothing with its inputs src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/ViewModels/Windows/MonacoWindowViewModel.cs:34 — `OnMenuAction` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it.

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking · ×2

Sync-over-async blocking — 1 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/App.xaml.cs:94 — `.Wait()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async local function without CancellationToken · ×2

Async local function without CancellationToken: FetchFontContents src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Program.cs:67 — Neither takes a CancellationToken nor reads the one of the function it sits in, while it calls something that takes one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Take the token, or pass on the enclosing one.
Async local function without CancellationToken: WriteToFile src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Program.cs:101 — Neither takes a CancellationToken nor reads the one of the function it sits in, while it calls something that takes one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Take the token, or pass on the enclosing one.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · markdown.renderTabs (cyclomatic 34) · ×1

markdown.renderTabs (cyclomatic 34) docs/templates/wpfui/src/markdown.ts:209 — markdown.renderTabs has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 34 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 11 function items inside it that branch (updateVisibilityAndSelection, handleClick, initTabs, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · toc.renderToc (cyclomatic 30) · ×1

toc.renderToc (cyclomatic 30) docs/templates/wpfui/src/toc.ts:18 — toc.renderToc has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 30 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 87, initTocNodes, renderToc, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph (cyclomatic 26) · ×1

Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph (cyclomatic 26) src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:54 — Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TitleBar.HwndSourceHook (cyclomatic 25) · ×1

TitleBar.HwndSourceHook (cyclomatic 25) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs:654 — TitleBar.HwndSourceHook has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TitleBar.GetWindowBorderHitTestResult (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

TitleBar.GetWindowBorderHitTestResult (cyclomatic 19) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:46 — TitleBar.GetWindowBorderHitTestResult 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 · toc.json.transformMemberPage (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

toc.json.transformMemberPage (cyclomatic 18) docs/templates/wpfui/toc.json.js:21 — toc.json.transformMemberPage has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 18 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 3 function items inside it that branch (groupChildren, transformItem, a function literal at line 42). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SystemThemeManager.GetCurrentSystemTheme (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

SystemThemeManager.GetCurrentSystemTheme (cyclomatic 16) src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/SystemThemeManager.cs:60 — SystemThemeManager.GetCurrentSystemTheme has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · search.enableSearch (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

search.enableSearch (cyclomatic 16) docs/templates/wpfui/src/search.ts:19 — search.enableSearch has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 7 function items inside it that branch (relativeUrlToAbsoluteUrl, a function literal at line 27, extractContentBrief, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×1

Hotspot: src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs:654 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 25 in TitleBar.HwndSourceHook at line 654. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-03-29..2026-06-27, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-03-29 15:58:28 +02:00' --until='2026-06-27 15:58:28 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph (cognitive 93) · ×1

Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph (cognitive 93) src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:54 — Highlighter.FormatAsParagraph has cognitive complexity 93 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · toc.renderToc (cognitive 34) · ×1

toc.renderToc (cognitive 34) docs/templates/wpfui/src/toc.ts:18 — toc.renderToc has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), ternaries 8 (9 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 34 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function items inside it that branch (initTocNodes, a function literal at line 87, renderToc, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SystemThemeManager.GetCurrentSystemTheme (cognitive 26) · ×1

SystemThemeManager.GetCurrentSystemTheme (cognitive 26) src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/SystemThemeManager.cs:60 — SystemThemeManager.GetCurrentSystemTheme has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TitleBar.HwndSourceHook (cognitive 26) · ×1

TitleBar.HwndSourceHook (cognitive 26) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.cs:654 — TitleBar.HwndSourceHook has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · toc.json.transformMemberPage (cognitive 24) · ×1

toc.json.transformMemberPage (cognitive 24) docs/templates/wpfui/toc.json.js:21 — toc.json.transformMemberPage has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 2 (3 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). None of this is in the body itself: all 24 points belong to 3 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 42, transformItem, groupChildren). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ContentDialog.FindDescendant (cognitive 20) · ×1

ContentDialog.FindDescendant (cognitive 20) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs:222 — ContentDialog.FindDescendant has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ContentDialogHostController.DisableHostSiblings (cognitive 20) · ×1

ContentDialogHostController.DisableHostSiblings (cognitive 20) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs:176 — ContentDialogHostController.DisableHostSiblings has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · NavigationView.OnMenuItemsSource_CollectionChanged (cognitive 19) · ×1

NavigationView.OnMenuItemsSource_CollectionChanged (cognitive 19) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Properties.cs:483 — NavigationView.OnMenuItemsSource_CollectionChanged has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VirtualizingWrapPanel.UpdateItemRange (cognitive 19) · ×1

VirtualizingWrapPanel.UpdateItemRange (cognitive 19) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/VirtualizingWrapPanel/VirtualizingWrapPanel.cs:364 — VirtualizingWrapPanel.UpdateItemRange has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · markdown.renderTabs · ×1

markdown.renderTabs::updateVisibilityAndSelection (cognitive 19) docs/templates/wpfui/src/markdown.ts:317 — markdown.renderTabs::updateVisibilityAndSelection has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (10 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ResourceDictionaryManager.UpdateDictionary (cognitive 18) · ×1

ResourceDictionaryManager.UpdateDictionary (cognitive 18) src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ResourceDictionaryManager.cs:96 — ResourceDictionaryManager.UpdateDictionary has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ResourceDictionaryManager.GetDictionary (cognitive 17) · ×1

ResourceDictionaryManager.GetDictionary (cognitive 17) src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ResourceDictionaryManager.cs:40 — ResourceDictionaryManager.GetDictionary has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Utilities.GetOSVersionFromRegistry (cognitive 17) · ×1

Utilities.GetOSVersionFromRegistry (cognitive 17) src/Wpf.Ui/Win32/Utilities.cs:158 — Utilities.GetOSVersionFromRegistry has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · highlight.highlight (cognitive 17) · ×1

highlight.highlight (cognitive 17) docs/templates/wpfui/src/highlight.ts:4 — highlight.highlight has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 17 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 18). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ContentDialogHostController.UnblockHostWindowInput (cognitive 16) · ×1

ContentDialogHostController.UnblockHostWindowInput (cognitive 16) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs:391 — ContentDialogHostController.UnblockHostWindowInput has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TextBlockMetadata.TextBlockMetadata.ctor (cognitive 16) · ×1

TextBlockMetadata.TextBlockMetadata.ctor (cognitive 16) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TextBlock/TextBlockMetadata.cs:10 — TextBlockMetadata.TextBlockMetadata.ctor has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). None of this is in the body itself: all 16 points belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 17, 43, 69). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×1

FunctionTooLong: markdown.renderTabs docs/templates/wpfui/src/markdown.ts:209 — FunctionTooLong — renderTabs runs 179 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 79 over it, 1.79× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×1

FileTooLong: Interop/User32.cs src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Interop/User32.cs — FileTooLong — 722 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 222 over it, 1.44× 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.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

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) src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:89 — src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:89-125 | src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:128-154 | src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:157-183 | src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:186-212 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (172 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (172 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6750 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6750-6921 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:6750-6921 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (1517 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (1517 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:3394 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:3394-4910 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:3391-4907 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (1045 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (1045 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:1475 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:1475-2519 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:1453-2497 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (657 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (657 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:818 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:818-1474 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:797-1453 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (424 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (424 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:394 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:394-817 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:374-797 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (379 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (379 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:3015 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:3015-3393 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:3011-3389 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (309 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (309 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:15 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:15-323 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:15-323 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (302 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (302 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:2710 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:2710-3011 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:2691-2992 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (187 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (187 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:2523 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:2523-2709 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:2505-2691 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (155 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (155 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5148 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5148-5302 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5146-5300 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (145 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (145 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6397 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6397-6541 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:6392-6536 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (121 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (121 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5540 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5540-5660 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5538-5658 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (118 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (118 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6224 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6224-6341 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:6199-6316 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (115 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (115 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5938 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5938-6052 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5913-6027 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (102 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (102 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:4912 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:4912-5013 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:4909-5010 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (91 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (91 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5303 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5303-5393 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5301-5391 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (79 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (79 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5669 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5669-5747 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5658-5736 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (60 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (60 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5019 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5019-5078 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5016-5075 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (59 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (59 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6054 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6054-6112 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:6029-6087 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (56 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (56 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5802 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5802-5857 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5792-5847 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (55 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (55 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5395 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5395-5449 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5393-5447 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (52 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (52 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6342 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6342-6393 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:6317-6368 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (49 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (49 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5866 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5866-5914 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5856-5904 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (38 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (38 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5078 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5078-5115 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5076-5113 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (36 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (36 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs:20 — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs:20-55 | src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/App.xaml.cs:20-55 — `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/App.xaml.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 2 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 64 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs:20` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5475 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5475-5509 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5473-5507 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (28–32 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (28–32 lines × 3) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DataGrid/DataGrid.cs:158 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DataGrid/DataGrid.cs:158-189 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DataGrid/DataGrid.cs:193-224 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DataGrid/DataGrid.cs:244-271 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DataGrid/DataGrid.cs:158` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs:285 — src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs:285-315 | src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs:319-349 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs:285` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29–31 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (29–31 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Win32/Utilities.cs:172 — src/Wpf.Ui/Win32/Utilities.cs:172-202 | src/Wpf.Ui/Win32/Utilities.cs:208-236 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui/Win32/Utilities.cs:172` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 10) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 10) src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:32 — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:32-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Collections/CollectionsPage.xaml.cs:32-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DateAndTime/DateAndTimePage.xaml.cs:32-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/DialogsAndFlyoutsPage.xaml.cs:32-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Layout/LayoutPage.xaml.cs:32-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Media/MediaPage.xaml.cs:32-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Navigation/NavigationPage.xaml.cs:32-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/OpSystem/OpSystemPage.xaml.cs:32-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/StatusAndInfo/StatusAndInfoPage.xaml.cs:32-58 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Text/TextPage.xaml.cs:32-58 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Collections/CollectionsPage.xaml.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6120 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:6120-6147 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:6095-6122 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (22 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 4) src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:90 — src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:90-111 | src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:129-150 | src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:158-179 | src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:187-208 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui/Animations/TransitionAnimationProvider.cs:90` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/IconSource/FontIconSource.cs:103 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/IconSource/FontIconSource.cs:103-124 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/IconSource/SymbolIconSource.cs:99-120 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/IconSource/FontIconSource.cs:103` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs:43 — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs:43-63 | src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs:43-63 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/ViewModels/Pages/SettingsViewModel.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5454 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5454-5473 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5452-5471 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5781 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs:5781-5799 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs:5771-5789 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolFilled.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/SymbolRegular.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 32 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 6505 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 (18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs:297 — src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs:297-314 | src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs:328-347 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui/Interop/UnsafeNativeMethods.cs:297` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:100 — src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:100-112 | src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:131-143 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:100` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 10) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 10) src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:62 — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:62-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Collections/CollectionsPage.xaml.cs:62-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DateAndTime/DateAndTimePage.xaml.cs:62-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/DialogsAndFlyoutsPage.xaml.cs:62-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Layout/LayoutPage.xaml.cs:62-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Media/MediaPage.xaml.cs:62-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Navigation/NavigationPage.xaml.cs:62-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/OpSystem/OpSystemPage.xaml.cs:62-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/StatusAndInfo/StatusAndInfoPage.xaml.cs:62-75 | src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Text/TextPage.xaml.cs:62-75 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Collections/CollectionsPage.xaml.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:46 — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:46-57 | src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:46-57 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/VirtualizingWrapPanel/VirtualizingWrapPanel.cs:435 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/VirtualizingWrapPanel/VirtualizingWrapPanel.cs:435-442 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/VirtualizingWrapPanel/VirtualizingWrapPanel.cs:465-474 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/VirtualizingWrapPanel/VirtualizingWrapPanel.cs:435` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (28 lines × 3) src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs:34 — src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs:34-61 | src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs:62-89 | src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/App.xaml.cs:62-89 — `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs` and `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 1 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 28 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs:34` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/GridView/GridViewHeaderRowPresenter.cs:38 — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/GridView/GridViewHeaderRowPresenter.cs:38-47 | src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/GridView/GridViewRowPresenter.cs:30-39 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Console/Views/Pages/DataPage.xaml.cs:30 — samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Console/Views/Pages/DataPage.xaml.cs:30-48 | samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.SetResources.Simple/Views/Pages/DataPage.xaml.cs:32-50 | samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple/Views/Pages/DataPage.xaml.cs:30-48 — before extracting anything, compare `samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Console/Views/Pages/DataPage.xaml.cs` and `samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple/Views/Pages/DataPage.xaml.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 82% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — .NET and JavaScript/TypeScript suite — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the .NET half could not be measured — no coverage produced (collector absent, or test run exceeded the inline budget); the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — the jest suite in docs/templates/ ran and not one test passed (FAIL wpfui/src/helper.test.ts), so the coverage would describe the failed run, not the code. This repository's production source spans both ecosystems, and no partial figure is published as if it were the whole: coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience · ×1

Outbound HTTP without resilience src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Program.cs:69 — `new HttpClient()` builds an outbound HTTP client and nothing bounds it: no timeout is set on it and no retry or resilience policy wraps its calls in the type that owns it. This codebase ships libraries/tools rather than a service it operates, so the failure lands as a hung caller — a build step, a CLI run, a UI thread — with no way out.

X1 · Async correctness · Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) · ×1

Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/App.xaml.cs:94 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness · Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it · ×1

Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Hicon.cs:102 — `bitmap` is a `Bitmap`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 102). Every use of it in `FromSource` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var bitmap = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness · Finalizer on a type that owns no unmanaged resource · ×1

Finalizer on a type that owns no unmanaged resource src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Internal/InternalNotifyIconManager.cs:70 — `InternalNotifyIconManager` declares a finalizer (line 70), but nothing in the type is unmanaged: no `IntPtr`/`UIntPtr` or pointer field, no `SafeHandle`, no `HandleRef`, no `extern`/`DllImport` member and no `Marshal`/`GCHandle`/`NativeMemory` use. A finalizer can only release what the garbage collector cannot, so on a purely-managed type it releases nothing and costs something: every instance is put on the finalizer queue, survives at least one extra collection, and is then finalized on a thread that is NOT the disposing one — where the managed objects it touches may already have been finalized themselves. Delete the finalizer (and the `GC.SuppressFinalize` that exists to defuse it); if a handle is added later, wrap it in a `SafeHandle`, which brings its own correct finalization.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded · ×1

Symbol treated as nullable, then dereferenced unguarded src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Services/ApplicationHostService.cs:54 — This method contradicts itself about `mainWindow`: line 55 writes `mainWindow?.Show`, which says `mainWindow` can be null, but line 54 then dereferences it directly as `mainWindow.Loaded` with no null test between them and no guard around it. If the `?.` is right, that dereference throws NullReferenceException on the input it was written for; if `mainWindow` truly cannot be null here, the `?.` is misleading. Settle it one way — test `mainWindow` once before the first use and handle the null case, or drop the `?.` — rather than leaving the two readings side by side.

Minor — 89 finding(s)

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Commented-out code · ×30

Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:27 — 4 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:32 — 4 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:39 — 11 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:51 — 11 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:63 — 11 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:134 — 3 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:141 — 3 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:159 — 9 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:169 — 9 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:190 — 5 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:196 — 7 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:204 — 5 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Windows/EditorWindow.xaml.cs:210 — 4 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Highlighter.cs:195 — 4 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Internal/InternalNotifyIconManager.cs:186 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Interop/User32.cs:1043 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ClientAreaBorder/ClientAreaBorder.cs:48 — 3 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/FluentWindow/FluentWindow.cs:283 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/FluentWindow/FluentWindow.cs:286 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/FluentWindow/FluentWindow.cs:287 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Navigation.cs:133 — 4 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Navigation.cs:140 — 4 consecutive lines of code sit inside a `/* … */` block — a block of code switched off rather than removed, which rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBarButton.cs:237 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBarButton.cs:241 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
Commented-out code src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBarButton.cs:245 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
+ 5 more in this group — see findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×22

Orphaned file src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostBehavior.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHost.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Effects/SnowflakeEffect.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/AutomationPeers/ContentDialogAutomationPeer.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/GridView/GridViewColumn.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/SnackbarPresenter.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ListView/ListView.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/IconSource/SymbolIconSource.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/GridView/GridViewHeaderRowPresenter.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/InfoBadge/InfoBadge.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/DialogsAndFlyoutsPage.xaml.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/StatusAndInfo/StatusAndInfoPage.xaml.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Navigation/NavigationPage.xaml.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/OpSystem/OpSystemPage.xaml.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Layout/LayoutPage.xaml.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Media/MediaPage.xaml.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Text/TextPage.xaml.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/IconElement/SymbolIcon.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Effects/Snowflake.cs: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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContextMenu/ContextMenuLoader.xaml.cs: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.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×10

README/code drift docs/index.md:130 — docs/index.md links to `/documentation/getting-started.html`, but `documentation/getting-started.html` 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/IMPLEMENTATION-GUIDE.md:261 — docs/architecture/IMPLEMENTATION-GUIDE.md names `src/Wpf.Ui/Assets/Toolbox/MyControl.bmp`, but no file or folder `src/Wpf.Ui/Assets/Toolbox/MyControl.bmp` exists. 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/RECOMMENDATIONS.md:14 — docs/architecture/RECOMMENDATIONS.md names `src/Wpf.Ui/Services/`, but no file or folder `src/Wpf.Ui/Services` exists. 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/TESTING-SPEC.md:105 — docs/architecture/TESTING-SPEC.md names `tests/Wpf.Ui.UnitTests/Usings.cs`, but no file or folder `tests/Wpf.Ui.UnitTests/Usings.cs` exists. 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/documentation/accent.md:211 — docs/documentation/accent.md documents the environment variable `WM_WININICHANGE`, 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.
README/code drift docs/documentation/extension.md:38 — docs/documentation/extension.md links to `/documentation/getting-started`, but `documentation/getting-started` 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/documentation/index.md:24 — docs/documentation/index.md links to `/documentation/nuget.html`, but `documentation/nuget.html` 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/documentation/index.md:30 — docs/documentation/index.md links to `/documentation/extension.html`, but `documentation/extension.html` 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/documentation/index.md:34 — docs/documentation/index.md links to `/documentation/getting-started.html`, but `documentation/getting-started.html` 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/documentation/nuget.md:31 — docs/documentation/nuget.md links to `/documentation/getting-started.html`, but `documentation/getting-started.html` 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.

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×6

Duplicated predicate docs/templates/wpfui/src/nav.ts:103 — `windowPathname === '' || windowPathname === '/' || windowPathname === '/index.html'` appears character-identically in 2 files — docs/templates/wpfui/src/nav.ts, docs/templates/wpfui/src/wpfui-index-stats.ts. 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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:34 — `navigationControl?.BreadcrumbBar != null && navigationControl.BreadcrumbBar.Visibility != Visibility.Collapsed` appears character-identically in 10 files — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Collections/CollectionsPage.xaml.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DateAndTime/DateAndTimePage.xaml.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/DialogsAndFlyoutsPage.xaml.cs. 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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:64 — `navigationControl?.BreadcrumbBar != null && navigationControl.BreadcrumbBar.Visibility != Visibility.Visible` appears character-identically in 10 files — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Collections/CollectionsPage.xaml.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DateAndTime/DateAndTimePage.xaml.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/DialogsAndFlyoutsPage.xaml.cs. 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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHost.cs:151 — `oldContent != null && newContent == null` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHost.cs, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostBehavior.cs. 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 src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHost.cs:143 — `oldContent == null && newContent != null` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHost.cs, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostBehavior.cs. 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 src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs:50 — `selectedItem.Icon is SymbolIcon selectedIcon && MainSymbolIcon.Symbol != selectedIcon.Symbol` appears character-identically in 10 files — src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/BasicInput/BasicInputPage.xaml.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/Collections/CollectionsPage.xaml.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DateAndTime/DateAndTimePage.xaml.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Views/Pages/DialogsAndFlyouts/DialogsAndFlyoutsPage.xaml.cs. 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.

AX6 · Interface segregation · Fat interface · ×2

Fat interface: INavigationView (47 members) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/INavigationView.cs:20 — `INavigationView` declares 47 members: `Header`, `HeaderVisibility`, `AlwaysShowHeader`, `MenuItems`, `MenuItemsSource`, `FooterMenuItems`, `FooterMenuItemsSource`, `IsTopSeparatorVisible`, `IsFooterSeparatorVisible`, `SelectedItem`, `ContentOverlay`, `IsBackEnabled`, `IsBackButtonVisible`, `IsPaneToggleVisible`, `IsPaneOpen`, `IsPaneVisible`, `OpenPaneLength`, `CompactPaneLength`, `PaneHeader`, `PaneTitle`, `PaneFooter`, `PaneDisplayMode`, `TitleBar`, `AutoSuggestBox`, `BreadcrumbBar`, `ItemTemplate`, `TransitionDuration`, `Transition`, `FrameMargin`, `PaneOpened`, `PaneClosed`, `SelectionChanged`, `ItemInvoked`, `BackRequested`, `Navigating`, `Navigated`, `CanGoBack`, `Navigate`, `Navigate`, `NavigateWithHierarchy`, and 7 more. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. Those 47 declarations carry 45 distinct name(s), so part of the width is overloading rather than separate responsibilities — but 45 operations clears the >15 bar on its own, so the row is about responsibilities, not signatures. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces.
Fat interface: INavigationViewItem (17 members) src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/INavigationViewItem.cs:18 — `INavigationViewItem` declares 17 members: `Id`, `Content`, `Icon`, `MenuItems`, `MenuItemsSource`, `IsActive`, `IsExpanded`, `TargetPageTag`, `TargetPageType`, `InfoBadge`, `NavigationCacheMode`, `Template`, `NavigationViewItemParent`, `Click`, `IsMenuElement`, `Activate`, `Deactivate`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Empty method body · ×2

Empty method body src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/NavigationView/NavigationView.Base.cs:234 — `ToggleAllExpands` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method.
Empty method body src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TextBlock/TextBlockMetadata.cs:82 — `Initialize` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method.

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

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 2 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Interop/Shell32.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/TrayManager.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 2 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (5 single-owned of 132 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 132 of the 489 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #3 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above. The files folded here: src/Wpf.Ui/Appearance/ApplicationAccentColorManager.cs, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/DropDownButton/DropDownButton.cs, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostController.cs.

D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithoutCallers · ×1

ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/VirtualizingUniformGrid/VirtualizingUniformGrid.cs:18 — [Obsolete] VirtualizingUniformGrid

D17 · Explicit Debt · DuplicateAnalyzerSeverity · ×1

DuplicateAnalyzerSeverity .editorconfig:363 — SA1101 severity is assigned none twice in the same [*.cs] section — here and again at line 366. The later assignment is the one that applies; this one is a duplicate to remove. — both lines say the same thing, so nothing about the build changes either way, but the repetition is what makes the next edit dangerous: whoever changes one of them will believe the change took effect, and the surviving copy will silently keep the old behaviour. Delete this one and leave a single entry for the rule.

D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1

Thin analysable surface across projects: Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank.csproj — 1 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code; `Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank` has 41 significant line(s). The mean analysable-surface weight is 100 %; this project lowers Solution Shape by about 0.03 point(s). Consolidate it or grow it into a substantial, well-scoped assembly.

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 2 of 23 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 8.3/10. The most over is `Wpf.Ui(net10.0-windows)` (42085 LoC, 187 public types across 11 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — split a project that spans unrelated responsibilities.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 22 of 132 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 132 of the 489 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialog.FocusBehavior.cs, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHostBehavior.cs, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ContentDialog/ContentDialogHost.cs, src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Effects/SnowflakeEffect.cs, src/Wpf.Ui/AutomationPeers/ContentDialogAutomationPeer.cs, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/GridView/GridViewColumn.cs, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/Snackbar/SnackbarPresenter.cs, src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/ListView/ListView.cs (and 14 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Blanket warning suppression · ×1

Blanket warning suppression src/Wpf.Ui/Controls/TitleBar/TitleBar.WindowResize.cs:70 — A `#pragma warning disable` with no error codes silences every warning for the rest of the file — hidden debt. Suppress specific codes with a justification instead.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 6/10 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 10, 6 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

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

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 7067 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

P6 · Release Hygiene · Changelog looks stale/thin · ×1

Changelog looks stale/thin — The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either the distinct `x.y.z` versions it names (a link's target is not counted) or its version-shaped section headings (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.

PF1 · Benchmark discipline · No performance benchmarks · ×1

No performance benchmarks — No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1

Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 9/34 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score · ×1

Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~0.5 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 78 suppression(s) across the 167332 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

Minor — 19 finding(s)

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×17

XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Gallery src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Wpf.Ui.Gallery.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Gallery: 10 % XML-doc coverage (50/477).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui(net10.0-windows) src/Wpf.Ui/Wpf.Ui.csproj — Wpf.Ui(net10.0-windows): 83 % XML-doc coverage (1131/1355).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.FontMapper src/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper/Wpf.Ui.FontMapper.csproj — Wpf.Ui.FontMapper: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/8).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.ToastNotifications(net10.0-windows) src/Wpf.Ui.ToastNotifications/Wpf.Ui.ToastNotifications.csproj — Wpf.Ui.ToastNotifications(net10.0-windows): 100 % XML-doc coverage (2/2).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Tray(net10.0-windows) src/Wpf.Ui.Tray/Wpf.Ui.Tray.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Tray(net10.0-windows): 76 % XML-doc coverage (164/215).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight(net10.0-windows) src/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight/Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight.csproj — Wpf.Ui.SyntaxHighlight(net10.0-windows): 80 % XML-doc coverage (8/10).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Abstractions(net10.0) src/Wpf.Ui.Abstractions/Wpf.Ui.Abstractions.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Abstractions(net10.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (15/15).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Demo.Console samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Console/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Console.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Demo.Console: 17 % XML-doc coverage (3/18).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Demo.Mvvm: 31 % XML-doc coverage (13/42).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Demo.Simple: 42 % XML-doc coverage (5/12).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Demo.Dialogs samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Dialogs/Wpf.Ui.Demo.Dialogs.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Demo.Dialogs: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/3).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.DependencyInjection(net10.0) src/Wpf.Ui.DependencyInjection/Wpf.Ui.DependencyInjection.csproj — Wpf.Ui.DependencyInjection(net10.0): 100 % XML-doc coverage (4/4).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Demo.SetResources.Simple samples/Wpf.Ui.Demo.SetResources.Simple/Wpf.Ui.Demo.SetResources.Simple.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Demo.SetResources.Simple: 21 % XML-doc coverage (5/24).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.FlaUI(net10.0-windows) src/Wpf.Ui.FlaUI/Wpf.Ui.FlaUI.csproj — Wpf.Ui.FlaUI(net10.0-windows): 100 % XML-doc coverage (2/2).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Blank src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/Wpf.Ui.Blank.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Blank: 100 % XML-doc coverage (2/2).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Compact src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Wpf.Ui.Compact.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Compact: 12 % XML-doc coverage (5/40).
XML-doc coverage: Wpf.Ui.Fluent src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Fluent/Wpf.Ui.Fluent.csproj — Wpf.Ui.Fluent: 12 % XML-doc coverage (5/40).

D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×2

Mock framework: NSubstitute — Wpf.Ui.UnitTests references NSubstitute.
Mock framework: NSubstitute — Wpf.Ui.Gallery.IntegrationTests references NSubstitute.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-31e17d35707a4a8dbba24b524d0f1e56/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-31e17d35707a4a8dbba24b524d0f1e56/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	32	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	nuget	—	nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan	0	—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 75 file(s) — `src/Wpf.Ui.DependencyInjection/DependencyInjectionNavigationViewPageProvider.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Blank/App.xaml.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/App.xaml.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Helpers/EnumToBooleanConverter.cs`, `src/Wpf.Ui.Extension.Template.Compact/Models/AppConfig.cs`, … (+70 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a167e3-2370-7004-b421-2078eaa6abb8 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 2 field(s) across 1 category, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by NAME, from the C# syntax tree, with a deliberately specific identifier classifier — the same one the C1–C5 compliance cards use to decide whether personal data is present, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip. Two caveats stated rather than glossed: those cards additionally require corroboration (a persistence/account signal, or two distinct PII categories) that this inventory deliberately does not, so it lists more than they gate on; and D32 Data Compliance shares nothing with it — that dimension is a separate semgrep ruleset for personal data leaking into logs, URLs and browser storage, and a clean D32 result says nothing about this list. Informational — it feeds no score.

Name — 2 field(s)

Person.FirstName src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Models/Person.cs:10
Person.LastName src/Wpf.Ui.Gallery/Models/Person.cs:12

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 58% · Adequate · gated by X3 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 83% · Strong ·

At a glance — Maturity · 83% · Strong ·

At a glance — Readiness · 55% · Adequate · gated by P3, P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

At a glance — Performance · 66% · Adequate ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Downloadable artifacts