druid — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.

The system holds an overall health score of 58%, indicating an adequate but fragile foundation. While the core code and architecture are robust, significant gaps in maturity and documentation create hidden risks that threaten long-term delivery speed and operational reliability. This is a medium-sized asset with substantial value tied up in its logic, yet its ability to evolve is constrained by a lack of institutional knowledge.

The most critical risk lies in Maturity, which scores only 45%. This lens measures whether a new team can understand and maintain the system without relying on tribal knowledge. The current state suggests a dormant codebase where living documentation is scarce, meaning every change requires re-learning context. This creates a velocity tax on every modification, plausibly increasing effort by 2–5% due to complexity and cohesion issues. Over time, this compounds, slowing feature delivery and increasing the likelihood of defects in business-critical areas.

A secondary concern is Production Readiness, scored at 66%. The system’s documentation does not match its reality; for instance, the README claims Docker and Flutter support, but these components are absent. Such discrepancies erode trust and can lead to deployment failures or security misconfigurations. While the code itself is clean (82% health) and the architecture is sound (85%), these strengths are undermined by the operational friction caused by outdated guides and orphaned files. The cost to rebuild this system is relatively low at approximately €65,000, but the cost of maintaining it in its current state is higher due to inefficiency.

To address these issues, the highest-leverage action is to record significant decisions in a structured format, such as a dedicated documentation tree. This single step will immediately improve maturity by capturing context and consequences, reducing the velocity tax on future changes. Reconciling the README with reality and resolving orphaned files should follow closely. This approach prioritizes knowledge retention over code refactoring, offering the best return on effort by stabilizing the team’s ability to work effectively.

Code Health 82% Strong Architecture 85% Adequate · gated by D26 Maturity 45% Adequate · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 66% Strong Security 61% Adequate · gated by D36 Event Sourcing 100% ★ Exemplary Performance 100% ★ Exemplary

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.

Maturity 45% · 46% weightSecurity 61% · 25% weightReadiness 66% · 14% weightCode Health 82% · 8% weightArchitecture 85% · 4% weightEvent Sourcing 100% · 2% weightPerformance 100% · 1% weight

Raise Maturity 45 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 58 → ~67.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (5+)

5 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-12) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D5 · Off the main sequence: druid-shell
D22 · Redundant and ambiguous logging configuration methods. `use_simple_logger` likely enables default console logging. `start_console_logging` takes a boolean flag, suggesting it can toggle or configure. `log_to_console` takes no arguments, suggesting it might be a toggle or a specific configuration. It is unclear if these are mutually exclusive, cumulative, or if one overrides the other. The naming convention varies (`use_`, `start_`, `log_to_`) for what appears to be the same domain concern (enabling console output).
D22 · Duplicate intent with confusing naming. `submit_notification` and `submit_notification_without_warning` perform the same core action (submitting a command/notification). The distinction is based on a side-effect (warning if unused), which is an implementation detail rather than a fundamental behavioral difference. This forces the user to know about the 'unused warning' mechanism to choose the correct API.
D22 · Inconsistent boolean property naming. `has_focus` uses the `has_` prefix, while `is_hot` uses the `is_` prefix. In Rust APIs, consistency in boolean method naming (either all `is_` or all `has_`) is preferred for discoverability. `is_active` and `is_initialized` also use `is_`, making `has_focus` the outlier.
D22 · Inconsistent parameter types for the same operation. `WindowConfig.set_position` takes `Point`, while `WindowDesc.set_position` takes `impl Into<Point>`. While `Point` likely implements `Into<Point>`, the explicit difference in signature suggests a lack of standardization in how positional data is accepted across similar configuration types. If `Point` is the canonical type, both should accept `impl Into<Point>` for flexibility (e.g., accepting tuples or arrays if defined).

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 — €21,000–€110,000

Cost to rebuild	€21,000–€110,000 (0.2–0.7 person-years (357–1,133 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.8× (at 58% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.4 person-years of build effort (about ~€65,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 45% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with window.rs (2), core.rs.

+10.6 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness

Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.

+5.7 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness

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).

+11.4 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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

This is a Medium asset (~0.4 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 45%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.4 person-years rebuild (52,114 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 45%

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

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.

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

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

A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics

The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 7.1/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 2–5% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)

Evidence: D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 7.1/10 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 graph

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

Architecture — 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.)

195 modules, 733 dependencies. 3 dependency cycles across 44 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 155 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 druid.data	2 druid.event	3 druid_shell.keyboard	4 druid_shell.region	5 druid.dialog	6 druid_shell.application	7 druid_shell.backend.gtk.error	8 druid_shell.scale	9 druid.text.format	10 druid.debug_state	11 druid.env	12 druid_shell.mouse	13 druid.widget.widget	14 druid_shell.window	15 druid.core	16 druid_shell.backend.wayland.surfaces	17 druid_shell.backend.wayland.surfaces.layershell	18 druid_shell.backend.gtk.window	20 druid.window	22 druid.command	23 druid.contexts	24 druid.widget.flex	25 druid.box_constraints	26 druid.text.input_component	27 druid.widget.controller	28 druid.widget.label	29 druid.widget.scroll	30 druid.menu	34 druid.win_handler	40 druid.app
1 druid.data
2 druid.event
3 druid_shell.keyboard
4 druid_shell.region
5 druid.dialog																				1
6 druid_shell.application																					1
7 druid_shell.backend.gtk.error									1
8 druid_shell.scale	1
9 druid.text.format							1
10 druid.debug_state									1
11 druid.env	3						2		4
12 druid_shell.mouse	1		1						2
13 druid.widget.widget		2								1	1										5	1	1
14 druid_shell.window		1	1	2	1	1		1				2						7										2
15 druid.core		2		1							1	2	2						1		6		1
16 druid_shell.backend.wayland.surfaces	2			1		1		1						1
17 druid_shell.backend.wayland.surfaces.layershell	1	1		1				1						1		3
18 druid_shell.backend.gtk.window		1	2	2	1	1		2	1			6		6			1		1									2
19 druid_shell.backend.wayland.surfaces.surface	2	1		3				3						3		5	1
20 druid.window		2		1						1	1		1	1	3			1								1		3		2
21 druid_shell.backend.wayland.application	1											1		2		1		1
22 druid.command									2				3						1
23 druid.contexts				1							2		3	2	6			1	2	2								1		2
24 druid.widget.flex		2								1	1		1		1						5		2
25 druid.box_constraints																						1
26 druid.text.input_component		2	1								2		1								6		1
27 druid.widget.controller		4								1	2		2								8	1	1
28 druid.widget.label		4								1	5		2							1	10	2	2
29 druid.widget.scroll		2								1	1		1								5	1	1
30 druid.menu											7								2							1
31 druid.widget.tabs	2	6									5		3		1					1	15	4	3			2
32 druid.widget.textbox		2	1							1	1		1	1						1	5		1	1		1	1
33 druid.widget.widget_ext													2												1		1
34 druid.win_handler		2	1	3		2		1			2		1	9				4	6	3								2		4
35 druid_shell.backend.mac.window		1		1	1	1			1			4		7				9										2
36 druid_shell.backend.wayland.window	1	1		1	1	1						2		4		2		6										2
37 druid_shell.backend.web.window		1		2	1	1		2				6		6				7	1									2
38 druid_shell.backend.windows.window		1		4	1	2		6	1			5		7				13										2
39 druid_shell.backend.x11.window		1	2	3	1	2		3				7		6				8										3
40 druid.app														2				4	1							1		1	1

Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 82% · Strong ·

The Good

D3 · Rust God Classes 8.0 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.7 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.4

The Bad

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 6.3 D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 5.5

At a glance — Architecture · 85% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 7.3 D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 7.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.7 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Ugly

D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 45% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 9.4 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.4 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0

The Bad

M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 6.0

The Ugly

D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 66% · Strong ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 9.0 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Rust License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P2 · Repo Observability 6.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0

At a glance — Security · 61% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0

The Bad

D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 4.8 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 5.4

The Ugly

D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

ES1 · Repo Fold determinism 10.0 ES2 · Repo Immutable events 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	45	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	22	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by establishing a single source of truth for architectural decisions and ensuring the README accurately reflects the actual project state, specifically correcting claims about Docker and Flutter. Next, create a quick-start guide in the README to help newcomers, while simultaneously cleaning up the codebase by removing orphaned files and dormant code. Finally, document these significant design choices in a structured, discoverable format to preserve institutional knowledge for the future.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with window.rs (2), core.rs.	+10.6 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.	+5.7 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
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).	+11.4 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists; README advertises a Flutter app, but no Flutter/Dart project exists.	+10.8 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+7.1 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.	+3.2 pts	Medium	Observability
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.	+3.2 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
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.	+3.2 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 95 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 1% slop · 35% mixed · 64% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.5	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
druid-shell/src/backend/mac/text_input.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid/src/core.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid/src/text/backspace.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid/src/widget/textbox.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid-shell/src/text.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
druid/src/widget/flex.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid/src/text/input_component.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/dialog.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid-shell/src/backend/mac/dialog.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
druid/src/widget/switch.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
druid/src/win_handler.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

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

Critical — 42

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 — 321

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 — 30

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

Could not be resolved — 49

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. 33 of 38 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 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 — 38 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D9D12D13D14D15D17D19D21D22D26D28D29D30D34D35D36D43AX10AX3AX4AX9ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6PF3

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, 359 of 393 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 01a0eb6e-b5e5-7128-b3dc-a4a06feb0ed9.

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.

D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — 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's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
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 (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) 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 — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (repository root, 28 test files), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. All 140 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness). Counted over 140 of the 189 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AX1 Captive dependencies — 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.
AX2 Stateful singletons — 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.
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. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, or a Dockerfile. 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).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
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.
P10 Library API & versioning — 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 NuGet packaging and C# public API only, and no .NET project was loaded for 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.
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.
PF1 Benchmark discipline — 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.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. 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.
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.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 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.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check 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.
X25 Inert configuration knob — 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.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — 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 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.
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 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.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check 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.
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 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.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — 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.
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.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 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.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. 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.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
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.
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.
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.
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.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
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.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
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 (5): D19, D21, D22, 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 Complexity6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

22 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was druid_shell::backend::mac::text_input::do_command_by_selector_impl at 98. A further 13 function(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being druid_shell::backend::shared::keyboard::hardware_keycode_to_code at 184 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 9 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: druid-shell/src/backend/shared/keyboard.rs (druid_shell::backend::shared::keyboard::hardware_keycode_to_code at 184), druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs (druid_shell::backend::windows::keyboard::scan_to_code at 161), druid-shell/src/backend/shared/xkb/keycodes.rs (druid_shell::backend::shared::xkb::keycodes::map_key at 146), druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/keycodes.rs (druid_shell::backend::gtk::keycodes::raw_key_to_key at 144), druid-shell/src/backend/mac/keyboard.rs (druid_shell::backend::mac::keyboard::key_code_to_code at 122), and 4 more not listed here. They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

druid_shell::backend::mac::text_input::do_command_by_selector_impl (cyclomatic 98) · ×4druid-shell/src/backend/mac/text_input.rs:257

MyWndProc::window_proc (cyclomatic 96) · ×2druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:944

WidgetPod::event (cyclomatic 51) · ×2druid/src/core.rs:599

druid::text::backspace::backspace_offset (cyclomatic 42) · ×2druid/src/text/backspace.rs:11

WindowBuilder::build (cyclomatic 23) · ×2druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:217

+ 10 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 druid_shell finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with dialog.rs (2), text_input.rs, text.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 MyWndProc finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with window.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 WidgetPod finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with core.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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 Complexity5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

41 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was MyWndProc::window_proc at 168.

druid_shell::text::simulate_input (cognitive 49) · ×6druid-shell/src/text.rs:443

WidgetPod::event (cognitive 58) · ×3druid/src/core.rs:599

KeyboardState::load_keyboard_layout (cognitive 30) · ×3druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs:715

MyWndProc::window_proc (cognitive 168) · ×2druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:944

druid::text::backspace::backspace_offset (cognitive 79) · ×2druid/src/text/backspace.rs:11

+ 19 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 6 druid_shell finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with dialog.rs (2), text.rs, util.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 WidgetPod finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with core.rs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 KeyboardState finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with keyboard.rs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

43 god class(es) detected.

FileTooLong: windows/window.rs · ×12druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs

MethodTooLong: MyWndProc.window_proc · ×10druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:944

TooManyMethods: Window · ×9druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:551

FunctionTooLong: druid_shell::backend::mac::text_input::do_command_by_selector_impl · ×7druid-shell/src/backend/mac/text_input.rs:257

ClassTooLong: MyWndProc · ×5druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:261

What to do

Resolve the 12 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with window.rs (4), core.rs, win_handler.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
Resolve the 10 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with window.rs (4), application.rs (3), core.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with window.rs (7), win_handler.rs, core.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 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?

D4 · Code Duplication9.7 / 10Stronggated by 33 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

32 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted. 1 of the 33 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:825

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×2druid/src/widget/slider.rs:780

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs:593

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2druid/src/widget/sized_box.rs:97

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:533

+ 19 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with window.rs (2), container.rs, getting_started_md.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with slider.rs, window.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with keyboard.rs, window.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 2 of the 3 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: druid-shell

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_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

101 test methods: 84 unit, 17 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 101 `#[test]` function(s) across 28 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 6 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~9.2~~ 9.0 / 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 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 98% · ceiling Verified

16 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. 53 of 54 direct crates were graded against crates.io (0 not published there, 1 not resolved by a committed REDACTED). Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.

Outdated: anyhow · ×16

✓ 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 378 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.4 / 10Stronggated by 150 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

150 deducted task-comment markers across 52114 LoC (0.3/KLoC) → score 9.4. 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.

TodoComment · ×137druid-shell/examples/edit_text.rs:87

FixmeComment · ×11druid-shell/src/text.rs:375

HackComment · ×2druid/src/text/input_component.rs:50

What to do

Resolve the 137 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with window.rs (38), mod.rs (10), text_input.rs (8). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (137 warning-level).
Resolve the 11 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with window.rs (3), text.rs (2), input_component.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with input_component.rs, button.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is a well-written overview of Druid as a Rust-native UI toolkit (goals, status, discontinuation rationale), and the docs/README gives focused build/contribution guidance for the documentation project. The READMEs for druid-derive/, druid-shell/, and druid/examples/ directories each state what they document without claiming to cover the repository's root, so their omission of an overview/installation is not flagged against the root. All visible documents are complete: the root gives a clear overview; docs/README guides contributors on editing, previewing, publishing documentation; druid-derive/, druid-shell/, and druid/examples/ READMEs each state what they document (and no overview); the data-flow section of 03_data.md is clipped mid-sentence but its outline exists. The visible content is clear and complete. A comprehensive documentation set for the druid Rust crate: nine README files (each covering a module or trait) plus an architecture/Docs markdown file. The content is well-organized and clearly written with each document's own heading; every section in the outline exists and is named, so no section is considered missing despite being clipped by the scanner.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

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

4 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 212 exposed types.

Redundant and ambiguous logging configuration methods. `use_simple_logger` likely enables default console logging. `start_console_logging` takes a boolean flag, suggesting it can toggle or configure. `log_to_console` takes no arguments, suggesting it might be a toggle or a specific configuration. It is unclear if these are mutually exclusive, cumulative, or if one overrides the other. The naming convention varies (`use_`, `start_`, `log_to_`) for what appears to be the same domain concern (enabling console output).

Duplicate intent with confusing naming. `submit_notification` and `submit_notification_without_warning` perform the same core action (submitting a command/notification). The distinction is based on a side-effect (warning if unused), which is an implementation detail rather than a fundamental behavioral difference. This forces the user to know about the 'unused warning' mechanism to choose the correct API.

Inconsistent boolean property naming. `has_focus` uses the `has_` prefix, while `is_hot` uses the `is_` prefix. In Rust APIs, consistency in boolean method naming (either all `is_` or all `has_`) is preferred for discoverability. `is_active` and `is_initialized` also use `is_`, making `has_focus` the outlier.

Inconsistent parameter types for the same operation. `WindowConfig.set_position` takes `Point`, while `WindowDesc.set_position` takes `impl Into<Point>`. While `Point` likely implements `Into<Point>`, the explicit difference in signature suggests a lack of standardization in how positional data is accepted across similar configuration types. If `Point` is the canonical type, both should accept `impl Into<Point>` for flexibility (e.g., accepting tuples or arrays if defined).

What to do

Resolve the 1 Redundant and ambiguous logging configuration methods.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicate intent with confusing naming. `submit_notification` and… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent boolean property naming. `has_focus` uses the `has_`… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 of 3 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split druid-shell

What to do

Resolve the 1 Split druid-shell 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?

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)4.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

45 finding(s): 0 critical, 41 high, 4 medium, 0 low. 38 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.

REDACTED

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 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 38 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 (38 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 Vulnerabilities5.4 / 10Adequate✓ 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, 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 5.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

22 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 21 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 15 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (15). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 5 Medium advisory (unsound) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

140 of 140 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs. Counted over 140 of the 189 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Most significant orphaned file · ×3druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs

Dormant codebase

What to do

Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with window.rs (2), core.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 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 recommendation-level).

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

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?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES1 · Fold determinism10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the recovery-replay fold is deterministic — state derived purely from each event's own fields, no clock/random/IO on the replay path.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES2 · Immutable events10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether domain events stay immutable (private fields, set once) rather than carrying mutable state.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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 a README to the 1 of 7 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.3 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 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.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

Record 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).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

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 accuracy6.0 / 10Adequate◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README advertises a Flutter app, but no Flutter/Dart project exists — searched for: `flutter`, `pubspec`, `dart`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists; README advertises a Flutter app, but no Flutter/Dart project exists.

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?

P2 · Observability6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 2/3 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `docs/book_examples`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

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.

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?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

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	82%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	85%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	45%	Adequate — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	66%	Strong	Solid.
Security	61%	Adequate — gated by D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event Sourcing	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Solid.

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 — 78 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not 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
AX2 Stateful singletons — 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
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
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~9392 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
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
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — too few calls resolved to assess navigability
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — D6 reads a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART/JAVA/PY/KT/TS/TSX/MTS/CTS/JS/JSX/MJS/CJS/PHP class graph only — this repository's production source is .rs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 53 value object(s); 4 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
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.
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
P10 Library API & versioning — 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 Rust 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 — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not 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
PF2 Allocation hygiene — 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
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — 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.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — 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.
X25 Inert configuration knob — 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 — 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.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — 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.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness 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.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — 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.
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 — 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.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — 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.
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 — 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
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 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
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 — 42 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 13 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 321 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×137

TodoComment druid-shell/examples/edit_text.rs:87 — // TODO(lord): rects for range on layout — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/window.rs:445 — // TODO: Can we get rid of the Result/Error for ergonomics? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/util.rs:14 — // TODO: Use .as_u64() instead of mem::transmute — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/screen.rs:20 — // TODO: Work area, cross_platform — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/region.rs:94 — // TODO: this would be a good use of the nightly drain_filter function, if it stabilizes — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/hotkey.rs:12 — // TODO: fix docstring — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/hotkey.rs:84 — //TODO: figure out if we need to be normalizing case or something? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/hotkey.rs:128 — //TODO: should something like this just _replace_ keymodifiers? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:518 — // TODO: how are we supposed to handle these errors? What can we do besides panic? Probably nothing right? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:665 — //TODO: Look at how gtk's scroll containers implements it — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:1158 — // TODO(gtk/misc): replace with present_with_timestamp if/when druid-shell — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:1240 — // TODO: Pixbuf expects unpremultiplied alpha. We should convert. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:1340 — // TODO: can we localize the unsafety more? Glib's idle loop always runs on the main thread, — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:1454 — // TODO: Determine X1/X2 state (do caching ourselves if needed) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/menu.rs:48 — // TODO: implement enabled dropdown — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/keycodes.rs:286 — // TODO: probably more — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/dialog.rs:30 — // TODO: support message localization — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/dialog.rs:108 — // TODO properly handle errors into the Error type — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/application.rs:24 — // TODO: we should give control over the application ID to the user — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/application.rs:27 — // TODO we set this to avoid connecting to an existing running instance — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:176 — // TODO: support custom cursors — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:1099 — // TODO: support custom cursors — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/web/window.rs:118 — // TODO: support custom cursors — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/web/window.rs:809 — // TODO: support custom cursors — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:918 — // TODO Everywhere we use the height for flipping around y it should be the max y in orig mac coords. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
+ 112 more in this group — see findings.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×15

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

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×12

FileTooLong: windows/window.rs druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs — FileTooLong — 1685 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1185 over it, 3.37× 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: x11/window.rs druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs — FileTooLong — 1244 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 744 over it, 2.49× 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: mac/window.rs druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs — FileTooLong — 983 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), declaring 37 free functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 483 over it, 1.97× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/core.rs druid/src/core.rs — FileTooLong — 708 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 80% of them inside a single declaration: WidgetPod (5 blocks, 39-1216). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 208 over it, 1.42× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/win_handler.rs druid/src/win_handler.rs — FileTooLong — 647 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 147 over it, 1.29× 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: widget/tabs.rs druid/src/widget/tabs.rs — FileTooLong — 630 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 130 over it, 1.26× 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: windows/keyboard.rs druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs — FileTooLong — 621 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 121 over it, 1.24× 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: widget/slider.rs druid/src/widget/slider.rs — FileTooLong — 574 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 74 over it, 1.15× 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: x11/application.rs druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs — FileTooLong — 568 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 79% of them inside a single declaration: Application (3 blocks, 106-830). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 68 over it, 1.14× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: widget/flex.rs druid/src/widget/flex.rs — FileTooLong — 555 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 68% of them inside a single declaration: Flex (3 blocks, 127-1033). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 55 over it, 1.11× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: text/input_component.rs druid/src/text/input_component.rs — FileTooLong — 552 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 52 over it, 1.10× 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: web/window.rs druid-shell/src/backend/web/window.rs — FileTooLong — 515 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.03× 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×11

FixmeComment druid-shell/src/text.rs:375 — //FIXME: we can do this without allocating; there's an impl in piet — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment druid-shell/src/text.rs:816 — //FIXME: what about windows? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:862 — //FIXME: when core_graphics is at 0.20, we should be able to use — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:868 — // FIXME: use the actual invalid region instead of just this bounding box. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:1436 — //FIXME: we should be using the x, y values passed by the caller, but then — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment druid-shell/src/backend/mac/dialog.rs:223 — // FIXME: As we have to roll our own view hierarchy, we're not getting a translated — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment druid-shell/src/backend/shared/xkb/mod.rs:208 — // FIXME(msrv): remove .iter().cloned() when msrv is >= 1.53 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment druid/src/win_handler.rs:677 — // FIXME: we need to be able to open a file without a window handle — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment druid/src/menu/sys.rs:226 — //FIXME: this doesn't work — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment druid/src/text/input_component.rs:363 — //FIXME: this should happen in the parent too? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment druid/src/text/input_component.rs:732 — //FIXME: this should behave differently if we were double or triple clicked — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×10

MethodTooLong: MyWndProc.window_proc druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:944 — MethodTooLong — window_proc runs 405 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 305 over it, 4.05× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: WindowBuilder.build druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:217 — MethodTooLong — build runs 197 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 97 over it, 1.97× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: WidgetPod.event druid/src/core.rs:599 — MethodTooLong — event runs 162 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 62 over it, 1.62× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Flex.layout druid/src/widget/flex.rs:648 — MethodTooLong — layout runs 162 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 62 over it, 1.62× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: MyWndProc.handle_deferred druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:631 — MethodTooLong — handle_deferred runs 158 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 58 over it, 1.58× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: WindowBuilder.build druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:1593 — MethodTooLong — build runs 145 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 45 over it, 1.45× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: WidgetPod.lifecycle druid/src/core.rs:886 — MethodTooLong — lifecycle runs 136 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 36 over it, 1.36× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Application.handle_event druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:502 — MethodTooLong — handle_event runs 133 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 33 over it, 1.33× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Application.new druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:194 — MethodTooLong — new runs 119 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 19 over it, 1.19× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Application.new druid-shell/src/backend/wayland/application.rs:132 — MethodTooLong — new runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) 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.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×9

TooManyMethods: Window druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:551 — TooManyMethods — 49 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 19 over it, 1.63× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WindowHandle druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:164 — TooManyMethods — 42 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 12 over it, 1.40× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WindowHandle druid-shell/src/backend/wayland/window.rs:43 — TooManyMethods — 40 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WindowHandle druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:91 — TooManyMethods — 39 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 9 over it, 1.30× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WindowHandle druid-shell/src/backend/web/window.rs:70 — TooManyMethods — 38 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 8 over it, 1.27× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WindowHandle druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:1600 — TooManyMethods — 37 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 7 over it, 1.23× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WindowHandle druid-shell/src/window.rs:162 — TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: AppState druid/src/win_handler.rs:62 — TooManyMethods — 35 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WidgetPod druid/src/core.rs:39 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×7

FunctionTooLong: druid_shell::backend::mac::text_input::do_command_by_selector_impl druid-shell/src/backend/mac/text_input.rs:257 — FunctionTooLong — druid_shell::backend::mac::text_input::do_command_by_selector_impl runs 205 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 105 over it, 2.05× 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: druid_shell::backend::shared::xkb::keycodes::map_key druid-shell/src/backend/shared/xkb/keycodes.rs:11 — FunctionTooLong — druid_shell::backend::shared::xkb::keycodes::map_key runs 181 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 81 over it, 1.81× 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: druid_shell::backend::gtk::keycodes::raw_key_to_key druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/keycodes.rs:14 — FunctionTooLong — druid_shell::backend::gtk::keycodes::raw_key_to_key runs 178 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 78 over it, 1.78× 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: druid_shell::backend::windows::keyboard::scan_to_code druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs:109 — FunctionTooLong — druid_shell::backend::windows::keyboard::scan_to_code runs 164 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 64 over it, 1.64× 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: druid::text::backspace::backspace_offset druid/src/text/backspace.rs:11 — FunctionTooLong — druid::text::backspace::backspace_offset runs 131 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 31 over it, 1.31× 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: druid_shell::backend::mac::keyboard::key_code_to_code druid-shell/src/backend/mac/keyboard.rs:35 — FunctionTooLong — druid_shell::backend::mac::keyboard::key_code_to_code runs 124 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 24 over it, 1.24× 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: druid_shell::text::simulate_input druid-shell/src/text.rs:443 — FunctionTooLong — druid_shell::text::simulate_input runs 105 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 5 over it, 1.05× 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · druid_shell · ×6

druid_shell::text::simulate_input (cognitive 49) druid-shell/src/text.rs:443 — druid_shell::text::simulate_input has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31 (46 pts), match/switch 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
druid_shell::backend::mac::dialog::build_panel (cognitive 31) druid-shell/src/backend/mac/dialog.rs:45 — druid_shell::backend::mac::dialog::build_panel has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (29 pts), match/switch 2 (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.
druid_shell::backend::windows::util::load_optional_functions (cognitive 30) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/util.rs:163 — druid_shell::backend::windows::util::load_optional_functions has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (30 pts) (nesting depth added 7). 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: 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.
druid_shell::backend::gtk::dialog::get_file_dialog_path (cognitive 29) druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/dialog.rs:25 — druid_shell::backend::gtk::dialog::get_file_dialog_path has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 14). 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.
druid_shell::backend::x11::application::poll_with_timeout (cognitive 28) druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:865 — druid_shell::backend::x11::application::poll_with_timeout has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (23 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (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.
druid_shell::backend::wayland::outputs::output::detect (cognitive 18) druid-shell/src/backend/wayland/outputs/output.rs:13 — druid_shell::backend::wayland::outputs::output::detect has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×5

ClassTooLong: MyWndProc druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:261 — ClassTooLong — 663 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 15 methods, 3 blocks, lines 261-1512. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 263 over it, 1.66× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: WidgetPod druid/src/core.rs:39 — ClassTooLong — 566 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 32 methods, 5 blocks, lines 39-1216. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 166 over it, 1.42× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Window druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:551 — ClassTooLong — 454 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 49 methods, 2 blocks, lines 551-1345. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 54 over it, 1.14× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Application druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:106 — ClassTooLong — 449 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 21 methods, 3 blocks, lines 106-830. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 49 over it, 1.12× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Window druid/src/window.rs:37 — ClassTooLong — 427 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 28 methods, 3 blocks, lines 37-687. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 27 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unsound) · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · druid_shell · ×4

druid_shell::backend::mac::text_input::do_command_by_selector_impl (cyclomatic 98) druid-shell/src/backend/mac/text_input.rs:257 — druid_shell::backend::mac::text_input::do_command_by_selector_impl has cyclomatic complexity 98 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
druid_shell::text::simulate_input (cyclomatic 32) druid-shell/src/text.rs:443 — druid_shell::text::simulate_input 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.
druid_shell::backend::gtk::dialog::get_file_dialog_path (cyclomatic 20) druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/dialog.rs:25 — druid_shell::backend::gtk::dialog::get_file_dialog_path 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.
druid_shell::backend::mac::dialog::build_panel (cyclomatic 20) druid-shell/src/backend/mac/dialog.rs:45 — druid_shell::backend::mac::dialog::build_panel 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:825 — druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:825-833 | druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:682-690 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:1491 — druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:1491-1499 | druid-shell/src/backend/mac/keyboard.rs:341-349 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) druid/src/widget/container.rs:241 — druid/src/widget/container.rs:241-249 | druid/src/widget/container.rs:264-272 — 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) docs/book_examples/src/getting_started_md.rs:57 — docs/book_examples/src/getting_started_md.rs:57-65 | docs/book_examples/src/getting_started_md.rs:77-85 — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WidgetPod · ×3

WidgetPod::event (cognitive 58) druid/src/core.rs:599 — WidgetPod::event has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (39 pts), boolean chains 9, match/switch 4 (8 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (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.
WidgetPod::lifecycle (cognitive 57) druid/src/core.rs:886 — WidgetPod::lifecycle has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (48 pts), match/switch 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 27). 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.
WidgetPod::update (cognitive 17) druid/src/core.rs:1136 — WidgetPod::update has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (10 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (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 · KeyboardState · ×3

KeyboardState::load_keyboard_layout (cognitive 30) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs:715 — KeyboardState::load_keyboard_layout has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (23 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (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.
KeyboardState::process_native_event (cognitive 18) druid-shell/src/backend/mac/keyboard.rs:264 — KeyboardState::process_native_event has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (16 pts), boolean chains 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.
KeyboardState::process_message (cognitive 18) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs:577 — KeyboardState::process_message has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MyWndProc · ×2

MyWndProc::window_proc (cyclomatic 96) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:944 — MyWndProc::window_proc has cyclomatic complexity 96 (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.
MyWndProc::handle_deferred (cyclomatic 34) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:631 — MyWndProc::handle_deferred 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WidgetPod · ×2

WidgetPod::event (cyclomatic 51) druid/src/core.rs:599 — WidgetPod::event has cyclomatic complexity 51 (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.
WidgetPod::lifecycle (cyclomatic 39) druid/src/core.rs:886 — WidgetPod::lifecycle 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · druid · ×2

druid::text::backspace::backspace_offset (cyclomatic 42) druid/src/text/backspace.rs:11 — druid::text::backspace::backspace_offset has cyclomatic complexity 42 (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.
druid::text::movement::movement (cyclomatic 28) druid/src/text/movement.rs:23 — druid::text::movement::movement has cyclomatic complexity 28 (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 · WindowBuilder · ×2

WindowBuilder::build (cyclomatic 23) druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:217 — WindowBuilder::build has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.
WindowBuilder::build (cyclomatic 20) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:1593 — WindowBuilder::build 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · HackComment · ×2

HackComment druid/src/text/input_component.rs:50 — // HACK: because of the way focus works (it is managed higher up, in — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment druid/src/widget/button.rs:143 — // HACK: to make sure we look okay at default sizes when beside a textbox, — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MyWndProc · ×2

MyWndProc::window_proc (cognitive 168) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:944 — MyWndProc::window_proc has cognitive complexity 168 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 56 (137 pts), match/switch 7 (17 pts), boolean chains 12, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 92). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs holds 4 of the 41 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 232 of the 827 points over it (28%), 2.7× the next-largest file (druid/src/core.rs at 87). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
MyWndProc::handle_deferred (cognitive 80) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:631 — MyWndProc::handle_deferred has cognitive complexity 80 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (67 pts), match/switch 3 (9 pts), loops 1 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 55). 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs holds 4 of the 41 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 232 of the 827 points over it (28%), 2.7× the next-largest file (druid/src/core.rs at 87). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · druid · ×2

druid::text::backspace::backspace_offset (cognitive 79) druid/src/text/backspace.rs:11 — druid::text::backspace::backspace_offset has cognitive complexity 79 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 36 (74 pts), loops 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 39). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
druid::text::movement::movement (cognitive 35) druid/src/text/movement.rs:23 — druid::text::movement::movement has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (29 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ValueTextBox · ×2

ValueTextBox::event (cognitive 59) druid/src/widget/value_textbox.rs:198 — ValueTextBox::event has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (44 pts), match/switch 4 (13 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.
ValueTextBox::update (cognitive 19) druid/src/widget/value_textbox.rs:344 — ValueTextBox::update has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (19 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 · Flex · ×2

Flex::layout (cognitive 51) druid/src/widget/flex.rs:648 — Flex::layout has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (34 pts), match/switch 6 (11 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 3 (nesting depth added 21). 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.
Flex::compute_max_intrinsic (cognitive 29) druid/src/widget/flex.rs:932 — Flex::compute_max_intrinsic has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (16 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Split · ×2

Split::event (cognitive 50) druid/src/widget/split.rs:296 — Split::event has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (37 pts), match/switch 5 (9 pts), boolean chains 4 (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.
Split::layout (cognitive 16) druid/src/widget/split.rs:396 — Split::layout has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (10 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 3 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Application · ×2

Application::run_inner (cognitive 42) druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:687 — Application::run_inner has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (27 pts), loops 4 (12 pts), match/switch 1 (3 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.
Application::handle_event (cognitive 19) druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:502 — Application::handle_event has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 2 (3 pts) (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 · Field · ×2

Field::parse_ast (cognitive 29) druid-derive/src/attr.rs:196 — Field::parse_ast has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (15 pts), match/switch 3 (9 pts), loops 2 (5 pts) (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.
Field::parse_ast (cognitive 17) druid-derive/src/attr.rs:120 — Field::parse_ast has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (9 pts), if/else 3 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WindowBuilder · ×2

WindowBuilder::build (cognitive 27) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:1593 — WindowBuilder::build has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (22 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs holds 4 of the 41 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 232 of the 827 points over it (28%), 2.7× the next-largest file (druid/src/core.rs at 87). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
WindowBuilder::build (cognitive 24) druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:217 — WindowBuilder::build has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (17 pts), match/switch 6 (7 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) druid/src/widget/slider.rs:780 — druid/src/widget/slider.rs:780-797 | druid/src/widget/switch.rs:290-307 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:662 — druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:662-679 | druid-shell/src/backend/web/window.rs:775-792 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs:593 — druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs:593-607 | druid-shell/src/backend/windows/keyboard.rs:652-666 — 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) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:2204 — druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:2204-2218 | druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:2263-2277 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) druid/src/widget/sized_box.rs:97 — druid/src/widget/sized_box.rs:97-104 | druid/src/widget/sized_box.rs:106-113 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) druid-derive/src/attr.rs:77 — druid-derive/src/attr.rs:77-84 | druid-derive/src/attr.rs:94-101 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:533 — druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:533-539 | druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:547-554 — 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) druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:1194 — druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:1194-1200 | druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:1794-1800 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) druid-derive/src/attr.rs:121 — druid-derive/src/attr.rs:121-126 | druid-derive/src/attr.rs:197-202 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) druid/src/widget/checkbox.rs:66 — druid/src/widget/checkbox.rs:66-71 | druid/src/widget/radio.rs:98-103 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) druid/src/text/input_component.rs:454 — druid/src/text/input_component.rs:454-458 | druid/src/text/input_component.rs:459-463 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:1250 — druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:1250-1254 | druid-shell/src/backend/mac/window.rs:1275-1279 — 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 · Application · ×1

Application::handle_event (cyclomatic 35) druid-shell/src/backend/x11/application.rs:502 — Application::handle_event has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TextBox · ×1

TextBox::event (cyclomatic 32) druid/src/widget/textbox.rs:519 — TextBox::event 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 · Flex · ×1

Flex::layout (cyclomatic 29) druid/src/widget/flex.rs:648 — Flex::layout has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EditSession · ×1

EditSession::do_action (cyclomatic 27) druid/src/text/input_component.rs:605 — EditSession::do_action has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ValueTextBox · ×1

ValueTextBox::event (cyclomatic 27) druid/src/widget/value_textbox.rs:198 — ValueTextBox::event 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ScrollComponent · ×1

ScrollComponent::event (cyclomatic 26) druid/src/scroll_component.rs:334 — ScrollComponent::event has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Split · ×1

Split::event (cyclomatic 26) druid/src/widget/split.rs:296 — Split::event has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TextComponent · ×1

TextComponent::event (cyclomatic 18) druid/src/text/input_component.rs:262 — TextComponent::event 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 · Switch · ×1

Switch::event (cyclomatic 18) druid/src/widget/switch.rs:85 — Switch::event 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 · Spacing · ×1

Spacing::next (cyclomatic 17) druid/src/widget/flex.rs:1098 — Spacing::next has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ScrollComponent · ×1

ScrollComponent::event (cognitive 40) druid/src/scroll_component.rs:334 — ScrollComponent::event has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (28 pts), match/switch 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TextBox · ×1

TextBox::event (cognitive 40) druid/src/widget/textbox.rs:519 — TextBox::event has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (31 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 17). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Switch · ×1

Switch::event (cognitive 31) druid/src/widget/switch.rs:85 — Switch::event has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (27 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 14). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Spacing · ×1

Spacing::next (cognitive 26) druid/src/widget/flex.rs:1098 — Spacing::next has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (18 pts), if/else 5 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TextComponent · ×1

TextComponent::event (cognitive 25) druid/src/text/input_component.rs:262 — TextComponent::event has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · InnerAppState · ×1

InnerAppState::dispatch_cmd (cognitive 24) druid/src/win_handler.rs:347 — InnerAppState::dispatch_cmd has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (19 pts), loops 2 (4 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RangeSlider · ×1

RangeSlider::event (cognitive 23) druid/src/widget/slider.rs:292 — RangeSlider::event has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (21 pts), boolean chains 2 (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 · SliderKnob · ×1

SliderKnob::handle_input (cognitive 21) druid/src/widget/slider.rs:683 — SliderKnob::handle_input has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (17 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 10). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditSession · ×1

EditSession::do_action (cognitive 19) druid/src/text/input_component.rs:605 — EditSession::do_action has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WaylandSource · ×1

WaylandSource::process_events (cognitive 17) druid-shell/src/backend/wayland/events.rs:71 — WaylandSource::process_events has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WindowHandle · ×1

WindowHandle::make_cursor (cognitive 17) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:2418 — WindowHandle::make_cursor has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), loops 2 (5 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs holds 4 of the 41 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 232 of the 827 points over it (28%), 2.7× the next-largest file (druid/src/core.rs at 87). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Stepper · ×1

Stepper::event (cognitive 16) druid/src/widget/stepper.rs:212 — Stepper::event has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 8). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Window · ×1

Window::handle_complete_notify (cognitive 16) druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs:1219 — Window::handle_complete_notify has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 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.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant and ambiguous logging configuration methods. `use_simple_logger` likely enables default console logging. `start_console_logging` takes a boolean flag, suggesting it can toggle or configure. `log_to_console` takes no arguments, suggesting it might be a toggle or a specific configuration. It is unclear if these are mutually exclusive, cumulative, or if one overrides the other. The naming convention varies (`use_`, `start_`, `log_to_`) for what appears to be the same domain concern (enabling console output). · ×1

Redundant and ambiguous logging configuration methods. `use_simple_logger` likely enables default console logging. `start_console_logging` takes a boolean flag, suggesting it can toggle or configure. `log_to_console` takes no arguments, suggesting it might be a toggle or a specific configuration. It is unclear if these are mutually exclusive, cumulative, or if one overrides the other. The naming convention varies (`use_`, `start_`, `log_to_`) for what appears to be the same domain concern (enabling console output). — Unify into a single method, e.g., `AppLauncher.with_logger(logger: LoggerConfig)` or `AppLauncher.enable_console_logging(enabled: bool)`. Remove `use_simple_logger` and `log_to_console` if they are just wrappers or aliases. (signatures: AppLauncher.use_simple_logger(): Self | AppLauncher.start_console_logging(enable: bool): Self | AppLauncher.log_to_console(): Self)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Duplicate intent with confusing naming. `submit_notification` and `submit_notification_without_warning` perform the same core action (submitting a command/notification). The distinction is based on a side-effect (warning if unused), which is an implementation detail rather than a fundamental behavioral difference. This forces the user to know about the 'unused warning' mechanism to choose the correct API. · ×1

Duplicate intent with confusing naming. `submit_notification` and `submit_notification_without_warning` perform the same core action (submitting a command/notification). The distinction is based on a side-effect (warning if unused), which is an implementation detail rather than a fundamental behavioral difference. This forces the user to know about the 'unused warning' mechanism to choose the correct API. — Rename `submit_notification_without_warning` to `submit_notification_silently` or `submit_notification_quiet` to better reflect the intent (suppressing warnings). Alternatively, expose a `warn_if_unused` flag on the notification itself (which exists in `Notification.warn_if_unused`) and remove the separate context method, allowing `submit_notification` to be the only entry point. (signatures: EventCtx.submit_notification(note: impl Into<Command>) | EventCtx.submit_notification_without_warning(note: impl Into<Command>))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent boolean property naming. `has_focus` uses the `has_` prefix, while `is_hot` uses the `is_` prefix. In Rust APIs, consistency in boolean method naming (either all `is_` or all `has_`) is preferred for discoverability. `is_active` and `is_initialized` also use `is_`, making `has_focus` the outlier. · ×1

Inconsistent boolean property naming. `has_focus` uses the `has_` prefix, while `is_hot` uses the `is_` prefix. In Rust APIs, consistency in boolean method naming (either all `is_` or all `has_`) is preferred for discoverability. `is_active` and `is_initialized` also use `is_`, making `has_focus` the outlier. — Rename `has_focus` to `is_focus` or `is_focused` to match `is_hot`, `is_active`, and `is_initialized`. Note: `is_focus` is grammatically poor, so `is_focused` is the best choice. (signatures: WidgetPod.has_focus(): bool | WidgetPod.is_hot(): bool)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent parameter types for the same operation. `WindowConfig.set_position` takes `Point`, while `WindowDesc.set_position` takes `impl Into<Point>`. While `Point` likely implements `Into<Point>`, the explicit difference in signature suggests a lack of standardization in how positional data is accepted across similar configuration types. If `Point` is the canonical type, both should accept `impl Into<Point>` for flexibility (e.g., accepting tuples or arrays if defined). · ×1

Inconsistent parameter types for the same operation. `WindowConfig.set_position` takes `Point`, while `WindowDesc.set_position` takes `impl Into<Point>`. While `Point` likely implements `Into<Point>`, the explicit difference in signature suggests a lack of standardization in how positional data is accepted across similar configuration types. If `Point` is the canonical type, both should accept `impl Into<Point>` for flexibility (e.g., accepting tuples or arrays if defined). — Standardize both to accept `impl Into<Point>` to allow for more flexible input types, or both to accept `Point` if strictness is preferred. Given `WindowDesc` is the primary builder, `impl Into<Point>` is likely the better pattern to propagate. (signatures: WindowConfig.set_position(position: Point): Self | WindowDesc.set_position(position: impl Into<Point>): Self)

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

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) druid/src/window.rs:330 — druid/src/window.rs:330-353 | druid/src/window.rs:355-386 | druid/src/window.rs:450-487 | druid/src/window.rs:502-542 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

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

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/wayland/window.rs:556 — druid-shell/src/backend/wayland/window.rs:556-577 | druid-shell/src/backend/wayland/window.rs:626-647 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) druid/src/widget/flex.rs:690 — druid/src/widget/flex.rs:690-706 | druid/src/widget/flex.rs:747-763 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–14 lines × 2) druid/src/win_handler.rs:775 — druid/src/win_handler.rs:775-788 | druid/src/win_handler.rs:795-806 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/x11/clipboard.rs:511 — druid-shell/src/backend/x11/clipboard.rs:511-524 | druid-shell/src/backend/x11/clipboard.rs:596-609 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) druid/src/core.rs:694 — druid/src/core.rs:694-706 | druid/src/core.rs:714-726 | druid/src/core.rs:757-769 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) druid/src/widget/slider.rs:540 — druid/src/widget/slider.rs:540-552 | druid/src/widget/slider.rs:558-570 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:1126 — druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:1126-1137 | druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs:2266-2277 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/web/window.rs:734 — druid-shell/src/backend/web/window.rs:734-744 | druid-shell/src/backend/web/window.rs:750-760 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) druid/src/window.rs:331 — druid/src/window.rs:331-340 | druid/src/window.rs:358-367 | druid/src/window.rs:451-460 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) druid/src/window.rs:332 — druid/src/window.rs:332-340 | druid/src/window.rs:359-367 | druid/src/window.rs:452-460 | druid/src/window.rs:504-512 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/wayland/menu.rs:17 — druid-shell/src/backend/wayland/menu.rs:17-42 | druid-shell/src/backend/web/menu.rs:13-44 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 6) druid/src/widget/align.rs:142 — druid/src/widget/align.rs:142-148 | druid/src/widget/clip_box.rs:503-509 | druid/src/widget/container.rs:275-281 | druid/src/widget/disable_if.rs:62-68 | druid/src/widget/env_scope.rs:98-104 | druid/src/widget/padding.rs:111-117 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 6 call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) druid/src/widget/aspect_ratio_box.rs:156 — druid/src/widget/aspect_ratio_box.rs:156-162 | druid/src/widget/identity_wrapper.rs:72-78 | druid/src/widget/invalidation.rs:87-93 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) druid/src/widget/progress_bar.rs:112 — druid/src/widget/progress_bar.rs:112-118 | druid/src/widget/slider.rs:207-213 | druid/src/widget/stepper.rs:276-282 | druid/src/widget/switch.rs:323-329 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:1431 — druid-shell/src/backend/gtk/window.rs:1431-1441 | druid-shell/src/backend/web/window.rs:763-772 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) druid/src/widget/button.rs:105 — druid/src/widget/button.rs:105-113 | druid/src/widget/checkbox.rs:38-46 | druid/src/widget/radio.rs:75-83 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: druid-shell — druid-shell: abstractness 0.11, instability 0.00, distance 0.89 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

Minor — 14 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Most significant orphaned file · ×3

Most significant orphaned file druid-shell/src/backend/windows/window.rs — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file druid-shell/src/backend/x11/window.rs — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file druid/src/core.rs — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×2

README/code drift — README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift — README advertises a Flutter app, but no Flutter/Dart project exists — searched for: `flutter`, `pubspec`, `dart`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

D26 · Project Cohesion · Split druid-shell · ×1

Split druid-shell — Shell project is huge (24k LoC) and sprawls over 13 unrelated backend/wayland/mac/gtk/x11 namespaces under a single name. Suggested: split into druid-shell/backend/* and druid-shell/platform/*

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 140 of 140 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 140 separate risks. Counted over 140 of the 189 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1

No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 2/3 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `docs/book_examples`.

Minor — 16 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×16

Outdated: anyhow — `anyhow` is locked at 1.0.100 but 1.0.104 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.100"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p anyhow` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: cfg-if — `cfg-if` is locked at 1.0.4 but 1.0.5 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.4"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p cfg-if` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: chrono — `chrono` is locked at 0.4.42 but 0.4.45 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.4.42"` requirement declared in druid/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p chrono` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: futures — `futures` is locked at 0.3.31 but 0.3.34 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.3.31"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p futures` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: js-sys — `js-sys` is locked at 0.3.83 but 0.3.106 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.3.83"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p js-sys` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: log — `log` is locked at 0.4.29 but 0.4.34 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.4.29"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p log` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: once_cell — `once_cell` is locked at 1.21.3 but 1.21.4 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.21.3"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p once_cell` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: pkg-config — `pkg-config` is locked at 0.3.32 but 0.3.34 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.3.32"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p pkg-config` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: proc-macro2 — `proc-macro2` is locked at 1.0.103 but 1.0.107 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.103"` requirement declared in druid-derive/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p proc-macro2` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: quote — `quote` is locked at 1.0.42 but 1.0.47 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0.42"` requirement declared in druid-derive/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p quote` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: time — `time` is locked at 0.3.47 but 0.3.55 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.3.47"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p time` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tracing — `tracing` is locked at 0.1.43 but 0.1.44 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.1.43"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tracing` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tracing-subscriber — `tracing-subscriber` is locked at 0.3.22 but 0.3.23 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.3.22"` requirement declared in druid/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tracing-subscriber` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: unicode-segmentation — `unicode-segmentation` is locked at 1.12.0 but 1.13.3 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.12.0"` requirement declared in druid/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p unicode-segmentation` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: wasm-bindgen — `wasm-bindgen` is locked at 0.2.106 but 0.2.129 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.2.106"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p wasm-bindgen` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: web-sys — `web-sys` is locked at 0.3.83 but 0.3.106 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.3.83"` requirement declared in druid-shell/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p web-sys` and commit the updated REDACTED.

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-93bb0456c2824a188470b752bacd514a/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-93bb0456c2824a188470b752bacd514a/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 .	45	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	22	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.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.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress 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	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a0eb6e-b5e5-7128-b3dc-a4a06feb0ed9 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Linebender/druid

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 82% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 85% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 45% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 66% · Strong ·

At a glance — Security · 61% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

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