less.js — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

⚠ A critical security finding caps this grade — resolve it before relying on the score below; see the Security lens.

The system holds a 46% health score, placing it at risk. While the architecture is robust and performance is strong, the foundation is compromised by poor code quality. This is a small asset, requiring only about one engineer-year to rebuild, but its current state creates a significant drag on delivery speed and increases the cost of every change. The primary danger is not immediate failure, but the compounding cost of technical debt that slows the team down and raises the likelihood of defects.

The most critical issue is fragile code health. With a score of 36%, the codebase is difficult to maintain and prone to errors. This weakness acts as a tax on every modification, potentially increasing effort by 9–20% compared to clean code. The top priority is migrating remaining JavaScript files to TypeScript and simplifying complex functions. This single action pays for itself quickly by reducing the annual drag on development, effectively stopping the bleeding of engineering time and allowing the team to focus on value rather than maintenance.

A secondary concern is operational maturity. The system scores 58% in maturity and 48% in production readiness, indicating gaps in testing, documentation, and observability. While the architecture is sound, these gaps mean that new team members may struggle to understand the system, and issues may go unnoticed until they impact users. This increases the risk of outages and delays in resolving incidents, which can erode customer trust and increase support costs.

Despite these risks, the system has genuine strengths. The architecture scores 79%, and performance is also strong at 79%, meaning the core logic is efficient and scalable. The rebuild effort is minimal, estimated at around €18,000, which provides a safety net if a complete rewrite becomes necessary. However, the immediate focus should be on improving code quality through TypeScript migration and reducing complexity. This approach offers the highest leverage, stabilizing the system and improving velocity without the high cost and risk of a full rebuild. The picture is partial, as domain modeling and event-driven aspects were not measured, but the current risks are clear and actionable.

Code Health 36% Weak · gated by D1, D2, D3, R1, R2 Architecture 79% Adequate · gated by D26 Maturity 58% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 48% Weak · gated by R8, P3 Security 56% Adequate · gated by D29, D30, D36 Performance 79% Strong

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Code Health 36% · 46% weightReadiness 48% · 25% weightSecurity 56% · 14% weightMaturity 58% · 8% weightArchitecture 79% · 4% weightPerformance 79% · 2% weight

Raise Code Health 36 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 46 → ~55.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (7+)

7 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-16) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D6 · Low cohesion: Node (LCOM4 5) packages/less/lib/less/tree/node.js
D6 · Low cohesion: PluginManager (LCOM4 4) packages/less/lib/less/plugin-manager.js
D30 · REDACTED
D30 · REDACTED
D44 · End-of-life runtime: Node.js 18
R8 · Unused dependency 'bootstrap-less-port'
PF3 · Sync-over-async blocking packages/less/test/exports/webpack-browser.cjs

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €6,100–€30,000

Cost to rebuild	€6,100–€30,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (101–320 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 46% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€18,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Code Health at 36% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.

+9.8 pts · Medium effort · Type Safety

Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.

+9.8 pts · Medium effort · Cyclomatic Complexity

Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with parser.js, ruleset.js.

+4.4 pts · Medium effort · God Classes

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk

This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Code Health at 36%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (17,863 LoC) · weakest lens: Code Health 36%

→ Direct remediation budget at Code Health first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

The top fix pays for itself · High · Economics

The top-ranked fix costs roughly 3–10 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 4.1–24.5 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~18,538 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–29 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 9–20% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.

Evidence: D15 churn: 4,571 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~18,538/year · D1/D2/D6 code quality: averaging 4.5/10 ⇒ a 9–20% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Medium effort ⇒ about 3–10 engineer-day(s)

→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 29 months.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.

A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics

The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 4.5/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 9–20% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)

Evidence: D1/D2/D6 code quality: averaging 4.5/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured

→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

77 modules, 39 dependencies. Every dependency points down the layering — no cycles.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 37 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 environment.environment	2 tree.node	6 tree.atrule	20 tree.js-eval-node	30 tree.ruleset
1 environment.environment
2 tree.node
3 environment.file-manager-api	1
4 tree.anonymous		1
5 tree.assignment		1
6 tree.atrule		1
7 tree.attribute		1
8 tree.call		1
9 tree.color		1
10 tree.combinator		1
11 tree.comment		1
12 tree.condition		1
13 tree.declaration		1
14 tree.detached-ruleset		1
15 tree.dimension		1
16 tree.element		1
17 tree.expression		1
18 tree.extend		1
19 tree.import		1
20 tree.js-eval-node		1
21 tree.keyword		1
22 tree.mixin-call		1
23 tree.namespace-value		1
24 tree.negative		1
25 tree.operation		1
26 tree.paren		1
27 tree.property		1
28 tree.query-in-parens		1
29 tree.quoted		1
30 tree.ruleset		1
31 tree.selector		1
32 tree.unicode-descriptor		1
33 tree.unit		1
34 tree.url		1
35 tree.value		1
36 tree.variable		1
37 tree.container			1
38 tree.javascript				1
39 tree.media			1
40 tree.mixin-definition					1

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 7.5 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 8.5

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
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	48	High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection	19	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, migrate the remaining JavaScript files to TypeScript to establish type safety, then reduce cyclomatic complexity by breaking down branch-heavy functions to improve maintainability. Next, address code structure by splitting oversized files into focused modules and resolving long functions in key files like parser-input.js. Finally, eliminate code duplication by extracting shared executable blocks and declarations into appropriate shared types or factories based on their specific usage patterns.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.	+9.8 pts	Medium	Type Safety
Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.	+9.8 pts	Medium	Cyclomatic Complexity
Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with parser.js, ruleset.js.	+4.4 pts	Medium	God Classes
Resolve the 9 Parser finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with parser.js (9).	+1.9 pts	Low	Cyclomatic Complexity
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.	+5.7 pts	Medium	Large Files
Resolve the 17 Parser finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with parser.js (17).	+2.5 pts	Medium	Cognitive Complexity
Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.	+4.6 pts	Medium	Code Duplication
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+4.4 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 49 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 6% slop · 78% mixed · 16% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.0	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.3	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.2	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.5	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: parser.Parser (cyclomatic 606)
packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: Ruleset.eval (cyclomatic 46)
packages/less/lib/less/import-manager.js	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: import-manager.default (cyclomatic 30)
packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js	7.1	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: parser-input.default (cyclomatic 80)
packages/less/lib/less/parse-tree.js	7.1	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ParseTree.toCSS (cyclomatic 27)
packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js	7.1	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ProcessExtendsVisitor.isElementValuesEqual (cyclomatic 22)
packages/less/lib/less-browser/index.js	7.1	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: (anonymous) (cyclomatic 36)
packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js	7.1	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: error-reporting.default (cyclomatic 32)
packages/less/lib/less/source-map-output.js	7.1	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: source-map-output.default (cyclomatic 31)
packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: MixinCall.eval (cyclomatic 40)
packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-definition.js	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: Definition.evalParams (cyclomatic 25)
packages/less/lib/less/tree/atrule.js	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: AtRule.constructor (cyclomatic 23)
packages/less/lib/less/functions/svg.js	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: svg.default (cyclomatic 20)

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 — 52

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 — 243

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 — 15

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

Could not be resolved — 34

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. 50 of 54 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — 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 — 54 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D20D21D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36D37D43D44AX10AX3AX4M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF1PF3R1R10R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9X24X25X29

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, 288 of 310 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 01a0f93b-de7c-7a51-9cc7-dd9a37f5652e.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.js, .cjs) and the coverage collector does support this ecosystem — it drives jest, vitest and mocha — but the only runner it declares is `mocha`, which the collector drives through `npm test` under a coverage provider — and that cannot reach a test script which delegates to a shell script or a build tool. Read from the manifests: `packages/less` has a `scripts.test` of `grunt test` and declares `mocha`, which that command never names. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's runner coverage, not a missing .js/.cjs runner and not a defect in this repository. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) 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 — a committed report is read whatever runner produced it.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.js, .cjs) and the reliability runner does support this ecosystem — it drives jest, vitest, mocha and egg-bin — but the only runner it declares is `mocha`, which the re-runner drives as `npm test -- --reporter json` — and that command cannot reach a test script which delegates to a shell script or a build tool. Read from the manifests: `packages/less` has a `scripts.test` of `grunt test` and declares `mocha`, which that command never names. So flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's runner coverage, not a missing .js/.cjs runner and not a finding about this repository.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (packages/less/package.json), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
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. `packages/less/benchmark/benchmark-runner.js` 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.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Subject: 1 markup document(s) — HTML, Razor, JSX, Vue, Svelte or server templates. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, or an npm dev script. None was found, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded and no Java or Rust was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Scala source only, and no C# was loaded and no Scala was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 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.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
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 (4): D19, D21, D26, 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 Complexity2.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

74 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was parser.Parser at 606.

Parser::args (cyclomatic 40) · ×9packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1210

(anonymous)::$parseUntil (cyclomatic 34) · ×3packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:217

parser.Parser (cyclomatic 606)packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:68

parser-input.default (cyclomatic 80)packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:1

Import.doEval (cyclomatic 50)packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:179

+ 42 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 9 Parser finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with parser.js (9). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 (anonymous) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with parser-input.js, parse-tree.js, svg.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 parser.Parser (cyclomatic 606) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with parser.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity2.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

112 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was parser.Parser at 178.

Parser::args (cognitive 89) · ×17packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1210

(anonymous)::$parseUntil (cognitive 58) · ×9packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:217

parser.Parser (cognitive 178)packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:68

MixinCall.eval (cognitive 93)packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js:63

Ruleset.joinSelector (cognitive 92)packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:684

+ 56 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 17 Parser finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with parser.js (17). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 (anonymous) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with parser-input.js (2), import-manager.js (2), parse-tree.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 parser.Parser (cognitive 178) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with parser.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

FunctionTooLong: parser-input.default · ×4packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:1

FileTooLong: parser/parser.js · ×2packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js

MethodTooLong: MixinCall.evalpackages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js:63

What to do

Resolve the 4 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with parser-input.js, index.js, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with parser.js, ruleset.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with mixin-call.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.4 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

2 of 42 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: Node (LCOM4 5) · ×2packages/less/lib/less/tree/node.js:69

What to do

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

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

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

7 test methods: 7 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 7 `it`/`test` case(s) across 5 test file(s) declaring at least one; 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 Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 6 tests.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

2 outdated direct production npm dependency(ies) of 2 graded, 0 pinning defect(s), across 2 package.json (2 of them the product) and 2 committed lockfile(s). Development dependencies are deliberately not graded: this dimension grades what SHIPS. Whether any of these packages is DEPRECATED or UNMAINTAINED is not graded — registry.npmjs.org's latest-version answer carries neither, and release age does not stand in for a maintenance status. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, and the frontend dependency lens (R8) answers it in this same run. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from the manifest there.

Outdated (npm): copy-anything · ×2

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_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 2 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 2 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 2 product package.json manifest(s). Its 61 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry. This repository publishes itself under Apache-2.0, which is its own choice and is not judged here.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots5.0 / 10Weak✓ 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 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js (8×606=4848)

Hotspot: packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.jspackages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:68

What to do

Resolve the 1 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with parser.js. — 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 Factor8.2 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

12 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is packages/less/Gruntfile.cjs. Counted over 65 of the 181 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)

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

0 deducted task-comment markers across 97 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

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

This repository's root README and two package-level READMEs (one for the repo itself, one for packages/less/) all present a clear overview, install/build/usage guide, contributing doc, release history, and license. The architecture/design docs are absent from any document, so that gap is not penalized. All four standard sections (overview, installation, usage, contributing) are visible in the root README and package-level docs; the unshown outline sections do not require reporting as missing.

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — This repository's root README and two package-level READMEs (one for the repo itself, one for packages/less/) all present a clear overview, install/build/usage guide, contributing doc, release history, and license. The architecture/design docs are absent from any document, so that gap is not penalized. All four standard sections (overview, installation, usage, contributing) are visible in the root README and package-level docs; the unshown outline sections do not require reporting as missing.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

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 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion3.3 / 10Weak✓ 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 3.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 3 build units (npm) 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 · Navigability10.0 / 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.

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

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

40 % of calls cross a namespace and 0 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ 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)3.0 / 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 3.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

19 finding(s): 0 critical, 19 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 12 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `packages/less/benchmark/benchmark-runner.js` — so no absence of findings in them is evidence of anything, and nothing in them was analysed. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 2 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 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 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 12 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 (12 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 Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

48 finding(s): 6 critical, 26 high, 14 medium, 2 low.

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 25 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (14), REDACTED (11). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (25 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 High vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 65 of the 181 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

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

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

What to do

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. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — 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 (.github/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-Life6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 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.

End-of-life runtime: Node.js 18

What to do

Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)5.2 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

24 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 2 of 3 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.3 pts.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

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 accuracy10.0 / 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 23780 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 javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

What to do

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline7.5 / 10Strong✓ 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.

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) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

`run` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs. — packages/less/test/exports/webpack-browser.cjs:11

What to do

TypeScript/JavaScript: use the promise APIs (fs/promises, a promisified child_process.execFile, the async zlib/crypto functions) and await them instead of the *Sync variants.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R1 · Type Safety0.1 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

2 typed · 179 plain JS — the untyped files are config/eslint/base.cjs, packages/less/index.cjs, packages/less/lib/less-browser/add-default-options.js, packages/less/lib/less-browser/browser.js, packages/less/lib/less-browser/cache.js, packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js (+173 more).

What to do

Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R10 · Code Duplication9.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

packages/less/lib/less/tree/property.js:7 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/variable.js:7 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 286 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/property.js:7
packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:48 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/media.js:38 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 294 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:48
scripts/test-release-automation.js:528 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:571 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — scripts/test-release-automation.js:528
scripts/test-release-automation.js:915 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:948 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — scripts/test-release-automation.js:915
packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:247 · packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:271 · packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:295 — 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. — packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:247
packages/less/lib/less/parse.js:7 · packages/less/lib/less/render.js:3 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/parse.js:7
packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:60 · packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:103 — 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. — packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:60
scripts/test-release-automation.js:769 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:872 — 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. — scripts/test-release-automation.js:769
packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:22 · packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:136 — 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. — packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:22
packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:19 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/media.js:12 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:19
scripts/test-release-automation.js:735 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:751 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:816 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:832 — 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. — scripts/test-release-automation.js:735
scripts/test-release-automation.js:816 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:832 — 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. — scripts/test-release-automation.js:816
packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2111 · packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2212 — 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. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2111
packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2684 · packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2718 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2684
packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-plugin-loader.js:32 · packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-plugin-loader.js:94 — 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. — packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-plugin-loader.js:32
packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:260 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:282 — 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. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:260
packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2618 · packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2645 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2618
packages/less/lib/less/tree/property.js:3 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/variable-call.js:5 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/variable.js:3 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/property.js:3
packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:221 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:235 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 81 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:221
packages/less/lib/less-node/image-size.js:12 · packages/less/lib/less/functions/data-uri.js:18 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 82 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — packages/less/lib/less-node/image-size.js:12
packages/less/lib/less/tree/namespace-value.js:48 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/namespace-value.js:63 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 60 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/namespace-value.js:48
REDACTED:203 · REDACTED:217 — 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. — REDACTED:203
packages/less/lib/less/functions/number.js:56 · packages/less/lib/less/functions/style.js:13 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 67 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — packages/less/lib/less/functions/number.js:56
packages/less/lib/less/plugin-manager.js:66 · packages/less/lib/less/plugin-manager.js:81 — 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. — packages/less/lib/less/plugin-manager.js:66
packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:194 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:224 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:194
packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:6 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/media.js:7 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js:4 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:6
scripts/test-release-automation.js:715 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:796 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:849 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:890 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — scripts/test-release-automation.js:715
packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:175 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:200 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:175
packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:218 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:256 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:218
packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:483 · packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:494 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:483
packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js:138 · packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js:188 — 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. — packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js:138
packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2205 · packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2223 — 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. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2205
packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js:13 · packages/less/scripts/coverage-report.js:11 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js:13
packages/less/lib/less/transform-tree.js:61 · packages/less/lib/less/transform-tree.js:85 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 52 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — packages/less/lib/less/transform-tree.js:61
packages/less/lib/less/tree/quoted.js:61 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/quoted.js:73 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/quoted.js:61
packages/less/scripts/coverage-report.js:135 · packages/less/scripts/coverage-report.js:142 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/less/scripts/coverage-report.js:135
scripts/post-merge-version-fix.js:88 · REDACTED:43 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — scripts/post-merge-version-fix.js:88
REDACTED:25 · scripts/release-metadata.js:127 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — REDACTED:25

What to do

Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity1.4 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

doEval has cyclomatic complexity 50 and cognitive complexity 81; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:179
eval has cyclomatic complexity 41 and cognitive complexity 72; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:104
args has cyclomatic complexity 40 and cognitive complexity 89; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1210
mediaFeature has cyclomatic complexity 39 and cognitive complexity 82; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2090
main has cyclomatic complexity 39 and cognitive complexity 53; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — REDACTED:165
atrule has cyclomatic complexity 37 and cognitive complexity 40; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2400
$parseUntil has cyclomatic complexity 34 and cognitive complexity 58; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:217
genCSS has cyclomatic complexity 32 and cognitive complexity 52; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:547
minMax has cyclomatic complexity 30 and cognitive complexity 42; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/functions/number.js:5
eval has cyclomatic complexity 29 and cognitive complexity 75; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js:63
permissiveValue has cyclomatic complexity 27 and cognitive complexity 55; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1877
toCSS has cyclomatic complexity 27 and cognitive complexity 44; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/parse-tree.js:12
evalParams has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 57; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-definition.js:96
declaration has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 38; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1775
isElementValuesEqual has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 32; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:376
parse has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:283
evalPlugin has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 35; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-plugin-loader.js:12
call has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 34; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1115
constructor has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 32; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/tree/atrule.js:37
selector has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 29; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1602

What to do

Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R3 · Large Files8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

What to do

Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R4 · Test Coverage9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×9) — scripts/test-release-automation.js, REDACTED, scripts/release-metadata.js, …

What to do

Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).

Do you agree with this assessment?

R5 · Dependency Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).

Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R7 · Dead Code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R8 · Dependency Hygiene2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
Declared in packages/less/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×2)

What to do

Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R9 · Circular Imports5.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js → packages/less/lib/less/tree/index.js → packages/less/lib/less/tree/atrule.js → packages/less/lib/less/tree/nested-at-rule.js → packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js → packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 26 files) — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js

What to do

Break each cycle by extracting the shared piece into a module both sides can import.

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. 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?

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?

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	36%	Weak — gated by D1, D2, D3, R1, R2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	79%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	58%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	48%	Weak — gated by R8, P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	56%	Adequate — gated by D29, D30, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	79%	Strong	Strongest area.

Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 74 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 — Frontend below the scale floor (10 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC2 Forms & labels — Frontend below the scale floor (10 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC3 Page structure — Frontend below the scale floor (10 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — Frontend below the scale floor (10 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC5 ARIA correctness — Frontend below the scale floor (10 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — Frontend below the scale floor (10 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC7 A11y enforcement — Frontend below the scale floor (10 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's JavaScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's TypeScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entity, a Mongoose schema, a Sequelize or Drizzle table, a Knex migration or a Prisma model — and no database or data-store client in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect. If it does persist personal data (through a hosted backend configured outside this repository, for instance), the controls belong to wherever that data is stored.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the mocha suite is behind a delegating test script
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
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) — 1 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D4 Code Duplication — This repository's production source (.cjs, .js, .ts) is not read by D4's token comparison, which compares .NET source: duplication in it is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream. Not scored here — read the R10 card for this repository's duplication.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this npm build ships 1 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — the mocha suite is behind a delegating test script
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) 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
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. TypeScript/JavaScript runs every callback on the one thread that owns its objects: a callback runs only when the body waiting on it has yielded, never alongside it, and a worker thread receives a COPY of what it is sent. A SharedArrayBuffer carries raw bytes, never an Array, Map or Set, so no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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 — 52 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×25

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×6

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

R9 · Circular Imports · Import cycle (5 files) · ×1

Import cycle (5 files) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js → packages/less/lib/less/tree/index.js → packages/less/lib/less/tree/atrule.js → packages/less/lib/less/tree/nested-at-rule.js → packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js → packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 26 files)

Serious — 243 finding(s)

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Parser · ×17

Parser::args (cognitive 89) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1210 — Parser::args has cognitive complexity 89 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (68 pts), boolean chains 10, ternaries 3 (10 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 49). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
Parser::mediaFeature (cognitive 82) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2090 — Parser::mediaFeature has cognitive complexity 82 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (59 pts), boolean chains 11, ternaries 2 (10 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 43). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
Parser::permissiveValue (cognitive 55) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1877 — Parser::permissiveValue has cognitive complexity 55 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (46 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 26). 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.
Parser::atrule (cognitive 40) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2400 — Parser::atrule has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (27 pts), boolean chains 7, ternaries 2 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::declaration (cognitive 38) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1775 — Parser::declaration has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (32 pts), boolean chains 6 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::call (cognitive 34) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1115 — Parser::call has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (25 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
Parser::selector (cognitive 29) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1602 — Parser::selector has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (23 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::parse (cognitive 27) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:283 — Parser::parse has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 7, ternaries 3 (4 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Parser::primary (cognitive 27) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:441 — Parser::primary has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::atomicCondition (cognitive 27) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2791 — Parser::atomicCondition has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (27 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::element (cognitive 26) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1508 — Parser::element has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (20 pts), loops 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::mediaFeatures (cognitive 26) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2199 — Parser::mediaFeatures has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (23 pts), loops 2, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::extend (cognitive 25) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1029 — Parser::extend has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::arguments (cognitive 23) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:662 — Parser::arguments has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 2 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::multiplication (cognitive 22) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2586 — Parser::multiplication has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (17 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::expression (cognitive 18) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2880 — Parser::expression has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Parser::ruleProperty (cognitive 18) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2919 — Parser::ruleProperty has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×10

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Parser · ×9

Parser::args (cyclomatic 40) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1210 — Parser::args has cyclomatic complexity 40 (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.
Parser::mediaFeature (cyclomatic 39) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2090 — Parser::mediaFeature has cyclomatic complexity 39 (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.
Parser::atrule (cyclomatic 37) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2400 — Parser::atrule has cyclomatic complexity 37 (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.
Parser::permissiveValue (cyclomatic 27) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1877 — Parser::permissiveValue has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Parser::parse (cyclomatic 22) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:283 — Parser::parse has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Parser::declaration (cyclomatic 22) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1775 — Parser::declaration has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Parser::call (cyclomatic 20) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1115 — Parser::call has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Parser::selector (cyclomatic 20) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1602 — Parser::selector has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Parser::primary (cyclomatic 16) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:441 — Parser::primary 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · (anonymous) · ×9

(anonymous)::$parseUntil (cognitive 58) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:217 — (anonymous)::$parseUntil has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (46 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 2, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 30). 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.
(anonymous)::toCSS (cognitive 44) packages/less/lib/less/parse-tree.js:12 — (anonymous)::toCSS has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (33 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 2 (3 pts), error handling 2 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous)::add (cognitive 28) packages/less/lib/less/source-map-output.js:48 — (anonymous)::add has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), ternaries 2 (8 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous)::skipWhitespace (cognitive 23) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:36 — (anonymous)::skipWhitespace has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (19 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous)::svg-gradient (cognitive 20) packages/less/lib/less/functions/svg.js:8 — (anonymous)::svg-gradient has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), ternaries 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous)::push (cognitive 17) packages/less/lib/less/import-manager.js:40 — (anonymous)::push has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (15 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
(anonymous)::push::loadFileCallback (cognitive 17) packages/less/lib/less/import-manager.js:79 — (anonymous)::push::loadFileCallback has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
(anonymous)::data-uri (cognitive 17) packages/less/lib/less/functions/data-uri.js:10 — (anonymous)::data-uri has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
(anonymous)::parse (cognitive 16) packages/less/lib/less/parse.js:8 — (anonymous)::parse has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

R4 · Test Coverage · No test reaches this file · ×9

No test reaches this file scripts/test-release-automation.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file REDACTED — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file scripts/release-metadata.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file packages/less/scripts/coverage-report.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file scripts/post-merge-version-fix.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file REDACTED — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file packages/less/scripts/postinstall.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file packages/less/index.cjs — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×4

FunctionTooLong: parser-input.default packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:1 — FunctionTooLong — default runs 273 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 173 over it, 2.73× 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.
FunctionTooLong: index.default packages/less/lib/less-browser/index.js:20 — FunctionTooLong — default runs 157 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 57 over it, 1.57× 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.
FunctionTooLong: bump-and-publish.main REDACTED:165 — FunctionTooLong — main runs 147 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 47 over it, 1.47× 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.
FunctionTooLong: error-reporting.default packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:4 — FunctionTooLong — default runs 127 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 27 over it, 1.27× 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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) · ×4

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:175 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:175 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:200 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:218 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:218 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:256 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:483 — packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:483 · packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:494 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js:138 — packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js:138 · packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js:188 — 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · (anonymous) · ×3

(anonymous)::$parseUntil (cyclomatic 34) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:217 — (anonymous)::$parseUntil has cyclomatic complexity 34 (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.
(anonymous)::toCSS (cyclomatic 27) packages/less/lib/less/parse-tree.js:12 — (anonymous)::toCSS has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
(anonymous)::svg-gradient (cyclomatic 20) packages/less/lib/less/functions/svg.js:8 — (anonymous)::svg-gradient has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) · ×3

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:22 — packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:22 · packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:136 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:19 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:19 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/media.js:12 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) scripts/test-release-automation.js:816 — scripts/test-release-automation.js:816 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:832 — 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.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2

FileTooLong: parser/parser.js packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js — FileTooLong — 1711 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded; the length bar is tripled for a single-responsibility module of 4 or fewer top-level units). The bar is 1500 significant lines; this is 211 over it, 1.14× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: tree/ruleset.js packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js — FileTooLong — 537 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 37 over it, 1.07× 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×2

Low cohesion: Node (LCOM4 5) packages/less/lib/less/tree/node.js:69 — Node's methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: PluginManager (LCOM4 4) packages/less/lib/less/plugin-manager.js:4 — PluginManager's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2 locations) scripts/test-release-automation.js:528 — scripts/test-release-automation.js:528 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:571 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2 locations) scripts/test-release-automation.js:915 — scripts/test-release-automation.js:915 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:948 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2111 — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2111 · packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2212 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2684 — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2684 · packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2718 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (10 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block with local edits (10 matched lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less-node/image-size.js:12 — packages/less/lib/less-node/image-size.js:12 · packages/less/lib/less/functions/data-uri.js:18 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 82 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
Duplicated block with local edits (10 matched lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/namespace-value.js:48 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/namespace-value.js:48 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/namespace-value.js:63 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 60 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/plugin-manager.js:66 — packages/less/lib/less/plugin-manager.js:66 · packages/less/lib/less/plugin-manager.js:81 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:194 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:194 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:224 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2205 — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2205 · packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2223 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js:13 — packages/less/scripts/coverage-lines.js:13 · packages/less/scripts/coverage-report.js:11 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/quoted.js:61 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/quoted.js:61 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/quoted.js:73 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/scripts/coverage-report.js:135 — packages/less/scripts/coverage-report.js:135 · packages/less/scripts/coverage-report.js:142 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) scripts/post-merge-version-fix.js:88 — scripts/post-merge-version-fix.js:88 · REDACTED:43 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) REDACTED:25 — REDACTED:25 · scripts/release-metadata.js:127 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · parser.Parser (cyclomatic 606) · ×1

parser.Parser (cyclomatic 606) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:68 — parser.Parser has cyclomatic complexity 606 (threshold 15). Of this number, 151 points are the body's own statements and 455 belong to 75 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · parser-input.default (cyclomatic 80) · ×1

parser-input.default (cyclomatic 80) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:1 — parser-input.default has cyclomatic complexity 80 (threshold 15). Of this number, 29 points are the body's own statements and 51 belong to 11 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Import.doEval (cyclomatic 50) · ×1

Import.doEval (cyclomatic 50) packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:179 — Import.doEval has cyclomatic complexity 50 (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 · Ruleset.eval (cyclomatic 46) · ×1

Ruleset.eval (cyclomatic 46) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:104 — Ruleset.eval has cyclomatic complexity 46 (threshold 15). Of this number, 43 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MixinCall.eval (cyclomatic 40) · ×1

MixinCall.eval (cyclomatic 40) packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js:63 — MixinCall.eval has cyclomatic complexity 40 (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 · bump-and-publish.main (cyclomatic 39) · ×1

bump-and-publish.main (cyclomatic 39) REDACTED:165 — bump-and-publish.main has cyclomatic complexity 39 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Ruleset.joinSelector (cyclomatic 38) · ×1

Ruleset.joinSelector (cyclomatic 38) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:684 — Ruleset.joinSelector has cyclomatic complexity 38 (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 · (anonymous) (cyclomatic 36) · ×1

(anonymous) (cyclomatic 36) packages/less/lib/less-browser/index.js:20 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 36 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 21 function items inside it that branch (loadStyleSheet::loadInitialFileCallback, registerStylesheetsImmediately, refresh::(anonymous)::(anonymous), …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · index.default (cyclomatic 35) · ×1

index.default (cyclomatic 35) packages/less/lib/less-browser/index.js:20 — index.default has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 14 belong to 9 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Ruleset.genCSS (cyclomatic 32) · ×1

Ruleset.genCSS (cyclomatic 32) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:547 — Ruleset.genCSS has cyclomatic complexity 32 (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 · error-reporting.default (cyclomatic 32) · ×1

error-reporting.default (cyclomatic 32) packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:4 — error-reporting.default has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). Of this number, 26 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · (anonymous) (cyclomatic 32) · ×1

(anonymous) (cyclomatic 32) packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:4 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 32 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 9 function items inside it that branch (errorHTML, errorConsole, removeError, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · source-map-output.default (cyclomatic 31) · ×1

source-map-output.default (cyclomatic 31) packages/less/lib/less/source-map-output.js:1 — source-map-output.default has cyclomatic complexity 31 (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 · (anonymous) (cyclomatic 31) · ×1

(anonymous) (cyclomatic 31) packages/less/lib/less/source-map-output.js:1 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 31 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 6 function items inside it that branch (add, toCSS, constructor, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · number.minMax (cyclomatic 30) · ×1

number.minMax (cyclomatic 30) packages/less/lib/less/functions/number.js:5 — number.minMax has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · import-manager.default (cyclomatic 30) · ×1

import-manager.default (cyclomatic 30) packages/less/lib/less/import-manager.js:7 — import-manager.default has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 30 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 79, 45, 161). 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · (anonymous) (cyclomatic 30) · ×1

(anonymous) (cyclomatic 30) packages/less/lib/less/import-manager.js:7 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 30 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 6 function items inside it that branch (push::loadFileCallback, push, push::fileParsedFunc, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ImportManager.push (cyclomatic 29) · ×1

ImportManager.push (cyclomatic 29) packages/less/lib/less/import-manager.js:40 — ImportManager.push has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 10 of the 29 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 79, 45, 161). 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · loadFile (cyclomatic 29) · ×1

loadFile (cyclomatic 29) packages/less/lib/less-node/file-manager.js:18 — loadFile has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 10 of the 29 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function items inside it that branch (getFileData::tryPathIndex::tryPrefix, getFileData::tryPathIndex::tryWithExtension, getFileData::tryPathIndex::tryPrefix::(anonymous), …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ParseTree.toCSS (cyclomatic 27) · ×1

ParseTree.toCSS (cyclomatic 27) packages/less/lib/less/parse-tree.js:12 — ParseTree.toCSS has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (parse-tree.default) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · parse-tree.default (cyclomatic 27) · ×1

parse-tree.default (cyclomatic 27) packages/less/lib/less/parse-tree.js:5 — parse-tree.default has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ParseTree.toCSS) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Definition.evalParams (cyclomatic 25) · ×1

Definition.evalParams (cyclomatic 25) packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-definition.js:96 — Definition.evalParams has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AtRule.constructor (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

AtRule.constructor (cyclomatic 23) packages/less/lib/less/tree/atrule.js:37 — AtRule.constructor has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ProcessExtendsVisitor.isElementValuesEqual (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

ProcessExtendsVisitor.isElementValuesEqual (cyclomatic 22) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:376 — ProcessExtendsVisitor.isElementValuesEqual has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AtRule.evalRoot (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

AtRule.evalRoot (cyclomatic 22) packages/less/lib/less/tree/atrule.js:225 — AtRule.evalRoot has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AbstractPluginLoader.evalPlugin (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

AbstractPluginLoader.evalPlugin (cyclomatic 20) packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-plugin-loader.js:12 — AbstractPluginLoader.evalPlugin has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · svg.default (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

svg.default (cyclomatic 20) packages/less/lib/less/functions/svg.js:7 — svg.default has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 20 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 8). 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · transform-tree.default (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

transform-tree.default (cyclomatic 20) packages/less/lib/less/transform-tree.js:10 — transform-tree.default has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, 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 · (anonymous) (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

(anonymous) (cyclomatic 20) packages/less/lib/less/transform-tree.js:10 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, 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 · ProcessExtendsVisitor.findMatch (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

ProcessExtendsVisitor.findMatch (cyclomatic 19) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:298 — ProcessExtendsVisitor.findMatch has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · toString (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

toString (cyclomatic 19) packages/less/lib/less/less-error.js:109 — toString has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · joinSelector · ×1

joinSelector::replaceParentSelector (cyclomatic 19) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:849 — joinSelector::replaceParentSelector has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · each (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

each (cyclomatic 19) packages/less/lib/less/functions/list.js:71 — each has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Color.toCSS (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

Color.toCSS (cyclomatic 18) packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:83 — Color.toCSS has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Visitor.visit (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

Visitor.visit (cyclomatic 18) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/visitor.js:45 — Visitor.visit has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Definition.matchArgs (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

Definition.matchArgs (cyclomatic 18) packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-definition.js:268 — Definition.matchArgs has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AbstractFileManager.extractUrlParts (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

AbstractFileManager.extractUrlParts (cyclomatic 17) packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-file-manager.js:81 — AbstractFileManager.extractUrlParts has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · add-default-options.default (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

add-default-options.default (cyclomatic 17) packages/less/lib/less-browser/add-default-options.js:8 — add-default-options.default has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · createCSS (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

createCSS (cyclomatic 17) packages/less/lib/less-browser/browser.js:4 — createCSS has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · (anonymous) (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

(anonymous) (cyclomatic 17) packages/less/lib/less-browser/add-default-options.js:8 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Call.eval (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

Call.eval (cyclomatic 16) packages/less/lib/less/tree/call.js:50 — Call.eval has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · cache.default (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

cache.default (cyclomatic 16) packages/less/lib/less-browser/cache.js:3 — cache.default 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 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 26, 11). 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · loadFile (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

loadFile (cyclomatic 16) packages/less/lib/less-node/url-file-manager.js:22 — loadFile has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 16 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 38, 23). 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · (anonymous) (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

(anonymous) (cyclomatic 16) packages/less/lib/less-browser/cache.js:3 — (anonymous) 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 2 function items inside it that branch (getCSS, setCSS). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · onImported (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

onImported (cyclomatic 16) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/import-visitor.js:100 — onImported has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×1

Hotspot: packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:68 — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 606 in parser.Parser at line 68. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 5 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-04..2026-09-02, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-04 13:02:17 -07:00' --until='2026-09-02 13:02:17 -07:00' --full-history --no-merges -- packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js`: 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 · parser.Parser (cognitive 178) · ×1

parser.Parser (cognitive 178) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:68 — parser.Parser has cognitive complexity 178 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 139, if/else 27 (32 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), error handling 2, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 150 points are the body's own statements and 28 belong to 75 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MixinCall.eval (cognitive 93) · ×1

MixinCall.eval (cognitive 93) packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js:63 — MixinCall.eval has cognitive complexity 93 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (54 pts), loops 9 (21 pts), boolean chains 10, error handling 1 (5 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 52). 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 · Ruleset.joinSelector (cognitive 92) · ×1

Ruleset.joinSelector (cognitive 92) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:684 — Ruleset.joinSelector has cognitive complexity 92 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31 (59 pts), loops 11 (28 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 45). 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 · eval (cognitive 83) · ×1

eval (cognitive 83) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:104 — eval has cognitive complexity 83 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (50 pts), loops 10 (19 pts), boolean chains 10, ternaries 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 39). Of this number, 72 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · doEval (cognitive 81) · ×1

doEval (cognitive 81) packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:179 — doEval has cognitive complexity 81 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (56 pts), boolean chains 18, ternaries 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 36). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · joinSelector · ×1

joinSelector::replaceParentSelector (cognitive 63) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:849 — joinSelector::replaceParentSelector has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (39 pts), loops 6 (20 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 39). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Definition.evalParams (cognitive 57) · ×1

Definition.evalParams (cognitive 57) packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-definition.js:96 — Definition.evalParams has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (37 pts), loops 5 (14 pts), boolean chains 6 (nesting depth added 30). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · (anonymous) (cognitive 55) · ×1

(anonymous) (cognitive 55) packages/less/lib/less-browser/index.js:20 — (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 55 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (40 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 4, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 55 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 21 function items inside it that branch (loadStyles::(anonymous), loadStyleSheet::loadInitialFileCallback, registerStylesheetsImmediately, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · source-map-output.default (cognitive 54) · ×1

source-map-output.default (cognitive 54) packages/less/lib/less/source-map-output.js:1 — source-map-output.default has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (36 pts), ternaries 2 (8 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 22). 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 · bump-and-publish.main (cognitive 53) · ×1

bump-and-publish.main (cognitive 53) REDACTED:165 — bump-and-publish.main has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (31 pts), boolean chains 11, error handling 4 (9 pts), loops 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · genCSS (cognitive 52) · ×1

genCSS (cognitive 52) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:547 — genCSS has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (30 pts), ternaries 6 (11 pts), loops 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 20). 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 · (anonymous) (cognitive 46) · ×1

(anonymous) (cognitive 46) packages/less/lib/less/transform-tree.js:10 — (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (33 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 25). Of this number, 41 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProcessExtendsVisitor.findMatch (cognitive 45) · ×1

ProcessExtendsVisitor.findMatch (cognitive 45) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:298 — ProcessExtendsVisitor.findMatch has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (31 pts), boolean chains 8, loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 25). 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 · ParseTree.toCSS (cognitive 44) · ×1

ParseTree.toCSS (cognitive 44) packages/less/lib/less/parse-tree.js:12 — ParseTree.toCSS has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (33 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 2 (3 pts), error handling 2 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (parse-tree.default) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · parse-tree.default (cognitive 44) · ×1

parse-tree.default (cognitive 44) packages/less/lib/less/parse-tree.js:5 — parse-tree.default has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (33 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 2 (3 pts), error handling 2 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ParseTree.toCSS) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · import-manager.default (cognitive 42) · ×1

import-manager.default (cognitive 42) packages/less/lib/less/import-manager.js:7 — import-manager.default has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (34 pts), boolean chains 8 (nesting depth added 8). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 26 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · minMax (cognitive 42) · ×1

minMax (cognitive 42) packages/less/lib/less/functions/number.js:5 — minMax has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), ternaries 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 12, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · transform-tree.default (cognitive 41) · ×1

transform-tree.default (cognitive 41) packages/less/lib/less/transform-tree.js:10 — transform-tree.default has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (28 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ImportManager.push (cognitive 41) · ×1

ImportManager.push (cognitive 41) packages/less/lib/less/import-manager.js:40 — ImportManager.push has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (34 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 15 of the 41 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 79, 45, 161). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · parser-input.default (cognitive 37) · ×1

parser-input.default (cognitive 37) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:1 — parser-input.default has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (19 pts), boolean chains 17, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · constructor (cognitive 36) · ×1

constructor (cognitive 36) packages/less/lib/less/tree/atrule.js:37 — constructor has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (22 pts), ternaries 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 15). Of this number, 32 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AbstractPluginLoader.evalPlugin (cognitive 35) · ×1

AbstractPluginLoader.evalPlugin (cognitive 35) packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-plugin-loader.js:12 — AbstractPluginLoader.evalPlugin has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (26 pts), error handling 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProcessExtendsVisitor.isElementValuesEqual (cognitive 34) · ×1

ProcessExtendsVisitor.isElementValuesEqual (cognitive 34) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:376 — ProcessExtendsVisitor.isElementValuesEqual has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · index.default (cognitive 34) · ×1

index.default (cognitive 34) packages/less/lib/less-browser/index.js:20 — index.default has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (21 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 3 (nesting depth added 8). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 9 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · eval (cognitive 34) · ×1

eval (cognitive 34) packages/less/lib/less/tree/namespace-value.js:29 — eval has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (29 pts), ternaries 1 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · (anonymous) (cognitive 33) · ×1

(anonymous) (cognitive 33) packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:4 — (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (20 pts), boolean chains 13 (nesting depth added 3). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 33 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 9 function items inside it that branch (errorHTML, errorConsole, errorHTML::(anonymous), …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · each (cognitive 30) · ×1

each (cognitive 30) packages/less/lib/less/functions/list.js:71 — each has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (22 pts), boolean chains 4, ternaries 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). Of this number, 29 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · parse.default (cognitive 29) · ×1

parse.default (cognitive 29) packages/less/lib/less/parse.js:7 — parse.default has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (25 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 11). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 29 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 8, 64, 21, …). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · error-reporting.default (cognitive 29) · ×1

error-reporting.default (cognitive 29) packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js:4 — error-reporting.default has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 15, if/else 14. Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SourceMapOutput.add (cognitive 28) · ×1

SourceMapOutput.add (cognitive 28) packages/less/lib/less/source-map-output.js:48 — SourceMapOutput.add has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), ternaries 2 (8 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · loadFile · ×1

loadFile::getFileData::tryPathIndex::tryPrefix (cognitive 27) packages/less/lib/less-node/file-manager.js:85 — loadFile::getFileData::tryPathIndex::tryPrefix has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), error handling 2 (6 pts), ternaries 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AtRule.evalRoot (cognitive 26) · ×1

AtRule.evalRoot (cognitive 26) packages/less/lib/less/tree/atrule.js:225 — AtRule.evalRoot has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 11). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LessError (cognitive 26) · ×1

LessError (cognitive 26) packages/less/lib/less/less-error.js:27 — LessError has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (14 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Visitor.visit (cognitive 25) · ×1

Visitor.visit (cognitive 25) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/visitor.js:45 — Visitor.visit has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Ruleset.find (cognitive 25) · ×1

Ruleset.find (cognitive 25) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:506 — Ruleset.find has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), loops 2 (8 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 25 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 518). 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 · Definition.matchArgs (cognitive 25) · ×1

Definition.matchArgs (cognitive 25) packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-definition.js:268 — Definition.matchArgs has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 3 (nesting depth added 8). Of this number, 24 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Color.toCSS (cognitive 24) · ×1

Color.toCSS (cognitive 24) packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js:83 — Color.toCSS has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (19 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Call.eval (cognitive 24) · ×1

Call.eval (cognitive 24) packages/less/lib/less/tree/call.js:50 — Call.eval has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), boolean chains 6, ternaries 1 (3 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · toString (cognitive 24) · ×1

toString (cognitive 24) packages/less/lib/less/less-error.js:109 — toString has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 2, other 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · eval (cognitive 24) · ×1

eval (cognitive 24) packages/less/lib/less/tree/url.js:47 — eval has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), ternaries 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · onImported (cognitive 22) · ×1

onImported (cognitive 22) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/import-visitor.js:100 — onImported has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), boolean chains 4, error handling 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 7). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function item inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProcessExtendsVisitor.doExtendChaining (cognitive 21) · ×1

ProcessExtendsVisitor.doExtendChaining (cognitive 21) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:146 — ProcessExtendsVisitor.doExtendChaining has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AbstractFileManager.extractUrlParts (cognitive 20) · ×1

AbstractFileManager.extractUrlParts (cognitive 20) packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-file-manager.js:81 — AbstractFileManager.extractUrlParts has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · eval (cognitive 20) · ×1

eval (cognitive 20) packages/less/lib/less/tree/operation.js:33 — eval has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Unit.cancel (cognitive 19) · ×1

Unit.cancel (cognitive 19) packages/less/lib/less/tree/unit.js:128 — Unit.cancel has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 5 (11 pts), if/else 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProcessExtendsVisitor.visitRuleset (cognitive 18) · ×1

ProcessExtendsVisitor.visitRuleset (cognitive 18) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:260 — ProcessExtendsVisitor.visitRuleset has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (10 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · (anonymous) (cognitive 18) · ×1

(anonymous) (cognitive 18) packages/less/lib/less-browser/cache.js:3 — (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 7, if/else 4 (5 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). Most of this is not in the body itself: 5 of the 18 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function items inside it that branch (getCSS, setCSS). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · eval · ×1

eval::calcDefGroup (cognitive 18) packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js:114 — eval::calcDefGroup has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (3 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Dimension.operate (cognitive 17) · ×1

Dimension.operate (cognitive 17) packages/less/lib/less/tree/dimension.js:94 — Dimension.operate has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Ruleset.parseValue (cognitive 17) · ×1

Ruleset.parseValue (cognitive 17) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:425 — Ruleset.parseValue has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 10 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · doXHR (cognitive 17) · ×1

doXHR (cognitive 17) packages/less/lib/less-browser/file-manager.js:21 — doXHR has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (11 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 2). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 2 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · createCSS (cognitive 17) · ×1

createCSS (cognitive 17) packages/less/lib/less-browser/browser.js:4 — createCSS has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (8 pts), boolean chains 7, error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · _removeDuplicateRules (cognitive 17) · ×1

_removeDuplicateRules (cognitive 17) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/to-css-visitor.js:301 — _removeDuplicateRules has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · data-uri.default (cognitive 16) · ×1

data-uri.default (cognitive 16) packages/less/lib/less/functions/data-uri.js:6 — data-uri.default has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 2). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 10). 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 · svg.default (cognitive 16) · ×1

svg.default (cognitive 16) packages/less/lib/less/functions/svg.js:7 — svg.default has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 3). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 8). 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 · loadFile (cognitive 16) · ×1

loadFile (cognitive 16) packages/less/lib/less-node/url-file-manager.js:22 — loadFile has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 5, if/else 5, ternaries 3 (4 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 2). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 38, 23). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · visitRuleset (cognitive 16) · ×1

visitRuleset (cognitive 16) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/to-css-visitor.js:225 — visitRuleset has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (11 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · processImportNode (cognitive 16) · ×1

processImportNode (cognitive 16) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/import-visitor.js:59 — processImportNode has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · variables (cognitive 16) · ×1

variables (cognitive 16) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:356 — variables has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 358). 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.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1

MethodTooLong: MixinCall.eval packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js:63 — MethodTooLong — eval runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life runtime · ×1

End-of-life runtime: Node.js 18 — .nvmrc declares Node.js 18 as this project's version file, and Node.js 18, support ended 2025-04-30. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2025-04-30 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.

M1 · Documentation (README) · README may be stale · ×1

README may be stale — 24 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking · ×1

Sync-over-async blocking packages/less/test/exports/webpack-browser.cjs:11 — `run` is async and calls existsSync — a blocking call inside async code stalls the event loop — every other request waits for as long as it runs.

R1 · Type Safety · Type Safety · ×1

Type Safety — 2 typed · 179 plain JS — the untyped files are config/eslint/base.cjs, packages/less/index.cjs, packages/less/lib/less-browser/add-default-options.js, packages/less/lib/less-browser/browser.js, packages/less/lib/less-browser/cache.js, packages/less/lib/less-browser/error-reporting.js (+173 more).

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (47 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (47 matched lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/property.js:7 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/property.js:7 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/variable.js:7 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 286 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (34 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (34 matched lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:48 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:48 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/media.js:38 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 294 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 3 locations) packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:247 — packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:247 · packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:271 · packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:295 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/parse.js:7 — packages/less/lib/less/parse.js:7 · packages/less/lib/less/render.js:3 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:60 — packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:60 · packages/less/lib/less/functions/color.js:103 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) scripts/test-release-automation.js:769 — scripts/test-release-automation.js:769 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:872 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 4 locations) scripts/test-release-automation.js:735 — scripts/test-release-automation.js:735 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:751 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:816 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:832 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-plugin-loader.js:32 — packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-plugin-loader.js:32 · packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-plugin-loader.js:94 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:260 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:260 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:282 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2618 — packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2618 · packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2645 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/property.js:3 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/property.js:3 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/variable-call.js:5 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/variable.js:3 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (11 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (11 matched lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:221 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:221 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:235 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 81 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) REDACTED:203 — REDACTED:203 · REDACTED:217 — 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (9 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (9 matched lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/functions/number.js:56 — packages/less/lib/less/functions/number.js:56 · packages/less/lib/less/functions/style.js:13 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 67 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3 locations) packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:6 — packages/less/lib/less/tree/container.js:6 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/media.js:7 · packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js:4 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4 locations) scripts/test-release-automation.js:715 — scripts/test-release-automation.js:715 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:796 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:849 · scripts/test-release-automation.js:890 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (6 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (6 matched lines × 2 locations) packages/less/lib/less/transform-tree.js:61 — packages/less/lib/less/transform-tree.js:61 · packages/less/lib/less/transform-tree.js:85 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 52 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function doEval (cyclomatic 50, cognitive 81) · ×1

Complex function doEval (cyclomatic 50, cognitive 81) packages/less/lib/less/tree/import.js:179 — doEval has cyclomatic complexity 50 and cognitive complexity 81; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function eval (cyclomatic 41, cognitive 72) · ×1

Complex function eval (cyclomatic 41, cognitive 72) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:104 — eval has cyclomatic complexity 41 and cognitive complexity 72; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function args (cyclomatic 40, cognitive 89) · ×1

Complex function args (cyclomatic 40, cognitive 89) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1210 — args has cyclomatic complexity 40 and cognitive complexity 89; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function mediaFeature (cyclomatic 39, cognitive 82) · ×1

Complex function mediaFeature (cyclomatic 39, cognitive 82) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2090 — mediaFeature has cyclomatic complexity 39 and cognitive complexity 82; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function main (cyclomatic 39, cognitive 53) · ×1

Complex function main (cyclomatic 39, cognitive 53) REDACTED:165 — main has cyclomatic complexity 39 and cognitive complexity 53; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function atrule (cyclomatic 37, cognitive 40) · ×1

Complex function atrule (cyclomatic 37, cognitive 40) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:2400 — atrule has cyclomatic complexity 37 and cognitive complexity 40; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function $parseUntil (cyclomatic 34, cognitive 58) · ×1

Complex function $parseUntil (cyclomatic 34, cognitive 58) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser-input.js:217 — $parseUntil has cyclomatic complexity 34 and cognitive complexity 58; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function genCSS (cyclomatic 32, cognitive 52) · ×1

Complex function genCSS (cyclomatic 32, cognitive 52) packages/less/lib/less/tree/ruleset.js:547 — genCSS has cyclomatic complexity 32 and cognitive complexity 52; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function minMax (cyclomatic 30, cognitive 42) · ×1

Complex function minMax (cyclomatic 30, cognitive 42) packages/less/lib/less/functions/number.js:5 — minMax has cyclomatic complexity 30 and cognitive complexity 42; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function eval (cyclomatic 29, cognitive 75) · ×1

Complex function eval (cyclomatic 29, cognitive 75) packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-call.js:63 — eval has cyclomatic complexity 29 and cognitive complexity 75; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function permissiveValue (cyclomatic 27, cognitive 55) · ×1

Complex function permissiveValue (cyclomatic 27, cognitive 55) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1877 — permissiveValue has cyclomatic complexity 27 and cognitive complexity 55; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function toCSS (cyclomatic 27, cognitive 44) · ×1

Complex function toCSS (cyclomatic 27, cognitive 44) packages/less/lib/less/parse-tree.js:12 — toCSS has cyclomatic complexity 27 and cognitive complexity 44; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function evalParams (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 57) · ×1

Complex function evalParams (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 57) packages/less/lib/less/tree/mixin-definition.js:96 — evalParams has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 57; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function declaration (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 38) · ×1

Complex function declaration (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 38) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1775 — declaration has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 38; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function isElementValuesEqual (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 32) · ×1

Complex function isElementValuesEqual (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 32) packages/less/lib/less/visitors/extend-visitor.js:376 — isElementValuesEqual has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 32; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function parse (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 27) · ×1

Complex function parse (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 27) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:283 — parse has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 27; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function evalPlugin (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 35) · ×1

Complex function evalPlugin (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 35) packages/less/lib/less/environment/abstract-plugin-loader.js:12 — evalPlugin has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 35; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function call (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 34) · ×1

Complex function call (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 34) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1115 — call has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 34; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function constructor (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 32) · ×1

Complex function constructor (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 32) packages/less/lib/less/tree/atrule.js:37 — constructor has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 32; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function selector (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 29) · ×1

Complex function selector (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 29) packages/less/lib/less/parser/parser.js:1602 — selector has cyclomatic complexity 20 and cognitive complexity 29; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'npm-run-all' · ×1

Unused dependency 'npm-run-all' — Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'benny' · ×1

Unused dependency 'benny' — Declared in packages/less/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'bootstrap-less-port' · ×1

Unused dependency 'bootstrap-less-port' — Declared in packages/less/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

Minor — 13 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 10 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: packages/less/Gruntfile.cjs, packages/less/lib/less/visitors/to-css-visitor.js, packages/less/lib/less/tree/color.js, packages/less/lib/less-node/lessc-helper.js, packages/less/lib/less/tree/selector.js, packages/less/lib/less/contexts.js, packages/less/lib/less/tree/quoted.js, packages/less/lib/less/tree/media.js (+2 more). 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 (12 single-owned of 65 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; 65 of the 181 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (1 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.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 3 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 3.3/10. The most over is `packages/less` (15433 LoC, 109 public types across 11 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

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

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 23780 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.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1

No release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

Minor — 2 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated (npm) · ×2

Outdated (npm): copy-anything — copy-anything is pinned at 3.0.5; registry.npmjs.org publishes 4.1.5 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.
Outdated (npm): parse-node-version — parse-node-version is pinned at 1.0.1; registry.npmjs.org publishes 2.0.0 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.

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-eb43317fc28c4c4e8a918f690e8d8805/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-eb43317fc28c4c4e8a918f690e8d8805/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 .	19	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
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	48	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 1 file(s) — `packages/less/benchmark/benchmark-runner.js` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover them at all.	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 01a0f93b-de7c-7a51-9cc7-dd9a37f5652e · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Less/less.Js

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 36% · Weak · gated by D1, D2, D3, R1, R2 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 79% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

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

At a glance — Readiness · 48% · Weak · gated by R8, P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 56% · Adequate · gated by D29, D30, D36 ·

At a glance — Performance · 79% · Strong ·

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

Downloadable artifacts