Public report — routilux, published 5 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
252findings with an exact file:lineof 262 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
23/94dimensions across the health lenses35931 LoC — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
lzjever/routilux carries serious gaps (47%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Architecture (100%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Security (25%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Maturity (62%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: 30 High finding(s) (Static Analysis (SAST)); 10 High CVE finding(s) (OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities); Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation).
For scale: Medium (~35,931 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.3 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth 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.
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.
0.7× (at 47% 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 ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€39,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 25% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Resolve the 30 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with ci.yml (12), security.yml (6), benchmark.yml (4).
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 25%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Security 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: Resolve the 30 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with ci.yml (12), security.yml (6), benchmark.yml (4). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Resolve the 30 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with ci.yml (12), security.yml (6), benchmark.yml (4).
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.7/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 3–7% 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 6.7/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
165 modules, 133 dependencies — 1 dependency cycle, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. 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.)
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
36
High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
30
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by resolving the 30 high-priority static analysis findings, starting with the ci.yml, security.yml, and benchmark.yml files. Next, address the 10 high-severity OSV dependency vulnerabilities, focusing first on the uv.lock file. Additionally, establish architecture decision records in a dedicated docs/adr/ directory to document significant design choices. Finally, integrate a SAST step into the CI pipeline to fail builds on security regressions, and reorganize the project structure to separate production code from tooling.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 30 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with ci.yml (12), security.yml (6), benchmark.yml (4).
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. 21 of 23 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — 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 — 23 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 252 of 262 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
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 (jscpd) — 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.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
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.
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.
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").
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.
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 (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
+ 24 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 ConditionalRouter._handle_input (cyclomatic 33) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with conditional_router.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_routine_node (cyclomatic 33) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with workflow.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 enhanced_retry_demo.host_b_load_and_resume (cyclomatic 32) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with enhanced_retry_demo.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
+ 66 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 RoutineAnalyzer._analyze_method (cognitive 23) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with routine.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 WorkflowAnalyzer._analyze_routine (cognitive 20) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with workflow.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 WorkflowD2Formatter._format_routine_node (cognitive 20) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with workflow_d2.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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 Classes9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.
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.
+ 29 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with async_orchestration.py, enhanced_retry_demo.py, retry_demo.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with workflow.py (3), analyzer_demo.py, flows.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with concurrent_flow_demo.py, error_handling_example.py, job_state_management.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
33 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is routilux/server/routes/flows.py.
Small-team knowledge concentration
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
Routilux has an excellent README with a strong 'Why Routilux?' rationale and perfect-for-use sections plus a thorough installation guide. The tests directory is well organized: Core Tests covers framework internals (routine/Slot/Event classes), Builtin Routines tests by sub-package, and All Tests runs both core and built-in-routine test sets. Scripts README adds value with release-notes generation scripts and their testing.
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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
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).
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×30.github/workflows/benchmark.yml:15detected by semgrep finding
Low: dynamic-urllib-use-detected · ×6routilux/cli/commands/job.py:145detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 30 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with ci.yml (12), security.yml (6), benchmark.yml (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (30 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 Low finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with job.py (3), list.py, server.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
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; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
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.
Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 No build provenance 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.
What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — read natively from whatever lockfile the repository ships (Cargo, npm, Go, Python, Maven, RubyGems, …). D33 and D30 add ecosystem-specific scanners on top for npm and .NET.
Method: Multi-ecosystem dependency-CVE scan via osv-scanner --recursive (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively across ecosystems: npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven/Gradle pom.xml/gradle.lockfile, PyPI requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock, Composer composer.lock, RubyGems Gemfile.lock, Hex mix.lock, pub pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable only when the repo declares no supported non-.NET dependency lockfile (a NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain); coverage needs a resolved lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×10uv.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×4uv.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted]uv.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-2132 · ×15uv.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
What to do
Resolve the 10 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with uv.lock (10). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 Critical CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with uv.lock (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 High vulnerability finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with uv.lock. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d38_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
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 `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
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 a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add bandit, `semgrep --config=p/python`, or CodeQL's python pack as a CI step.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: bandit, `semgrep --config=p/python`, or CodeQL's python pack — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are 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.
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?
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.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 71 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set 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 — no singleton implementations detected
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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 — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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.
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.
D10 Test Quality — ~7558 lines of test source are present (.py) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, 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
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry)), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
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.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.py, .rb) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. 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
D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry) — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
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.
D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .py, .rb, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding 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
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.py) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (57 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, 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
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
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
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
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
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
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.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/benchmark.yml:15— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/benchmark.yml:18— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v5`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v5 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/benchmark.yml:23— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: astral-sh/setup-uv@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `astral-sh/setup-uv@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/astral-sh/setup-uv/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/benchmark.yml:38— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:19— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:22— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v5`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v5 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:27— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: astral-sh/setup-uv@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `astral-sh/setup-uv@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/astral-sh/setup-uv/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:54— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: codecov/codecov-action@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `codecov/codecov-action@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/codecov/codecov-action/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:63— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:77— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:80— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v5`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v5 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:85— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: astral-sh/setup-uv@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `astral-sh/setup-uv@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/astral-sh/setup-uv/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:107— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:110— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v5`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v5 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:115— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: astral-sh/setup-uv@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `astral-sh/setup-uv@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/astral-sh/setup-uv/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:128— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/release.yml:25— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/release.yml:30— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v5`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v5 --jq .sha`.
High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/release.yml:41— Using variable interpolation `${{...}}` with `github` context data in a `run:` step could allow an attacker to inject their own code into the runner. This would allow them to steal secrets and code. `github` context data can have arbitrary user input and should be treated as untrusted. Instead, use an intermediate environment variable with `env:` to store the data and use the environment variable in the `run:` script. Reference it as a shell VARIABLE rather than a `${{ }}` interpolation, using your shell's own syntax (`"$ENVVAR"` in bash, `$env:ENVVAR` in PowerShell), so the value is passed as data and never re-expanded as code.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/release.yml:102— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v1`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v1 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/security.yml:22— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/security.yml:25— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v5`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v5 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/security.yml:30— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: astral-sh/setup-uv@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `astral-sh/setup-uv@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/astral-sh/setup-uv/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/security.yml:50— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/security.yml:69— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
+ 5 more in this group — see findings.md.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· High CVE · ×10
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— msgpack 1.1.1: [GHSA redacted] — msgpack is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain msgpack to >=1.2.1 in your constraints/requirements file).
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— msgpack 1.1.2: [GHSA redacted] — msgpack is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain msgpack to >=1.2.1 in your constraints/requirements file).
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— setuptools 75.3.3: [GHSA redacted] — setuptools is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain setuptools to >=78.1.1 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against setuptools 75.3.3, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 83.0.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 83.0.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against setuptools 75.3.3: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— soupsieve 2.7: [GHSA redacted] — soupsieve is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain soupsieve to >=2.8.4 in your constraints/requirements file). This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against soupsieve 2.7: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— soupsieve 2.8.1: [GHSA redacted] — soupsieve is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain soupsieve to >=2.8.4 in your constraints/requirements file). This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against soupsieve 2.8.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— starlette 0.44.0: [GHSA redacted] — starlette is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain starlette to >=0.49.1 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 7 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against starlette 0.44.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 0.49.1 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 0.49.1 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 7 advisories this scan raises against starlette 0.44.0: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], PYSEC-2026-248.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— starlette 0.49.3: [GHSA redacted] — starlette is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain starlette to >=1.3.1 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 5 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against starlette 0.49.3, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.3.1 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.3.1 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 5 advisories this scan raises against starlette 0.49.3: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], PYSEC-2026-248.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— starlette 0.52.1: [GHSA redacted] — starlette is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain starlette to >=1.3.1 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 5 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against starlette 0.52.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.3.1 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.3.1 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 5 advisories this scan raises against starlette 0.52.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], PYSEC-2026-248.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— urllib3 2.2.3: [GHSA redacted] — urllib3 is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain urllib3 to >=2.6.0 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 6 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against urllib3 2.2.3, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2.7.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2.7.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 6 advisories this scan raises against urllib3 2.2.3: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— urllib3 2.6.2: [GHSA redacted] — urllib3 is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain urllib3 to >=2.6.3 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against urllib3 2.6.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2.7.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2.7.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against urllib3 2.6.2: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— authlib 1.3.2: [GHSA redacted] — authlib is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain authlib to >=1.6.9 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 10 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against authlib 1.3.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.6.12 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.6.12 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 10 advisories this scan raises against authlib 1.3.2: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— authlib 1.6.6: [GHSA redacted] — authlib is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain authlib to >=1.6.9 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 7 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against authlib 1.6.6, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.6.12 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.6.12 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 7 advisories this scan raises against authlib 1.6.6: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— nltk 3.9.1: [GHSA redacted] — nltk is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain nltk to >=3.9.3 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 13 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against nltk 3.9.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.10.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.10.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 15 advisories this scan raises against nltk 3.9.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], PYSEC-2026-2085, PYSEC-2026-597, PYSEC-2026-99.
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— nltk 3.9.2: [GHSA redacted] — nltk is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain nltk to >=3.9.3 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 13 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against nltk 3.9.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.10.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.10.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 15 advisories this scan raises against nltk 3.9.2: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], PYSEC-2026-2085, PYSEC-2026-597, PYSEC-2026-99.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· High vulnerability · ×1
High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— cryptography 46.0.4: [GHSA redacted] — cryptography is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain cryptography to >=48.0.1 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 7 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against cryptography 46.0.4, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 46.0.7 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 46.0.7 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 7 advisories this scan raises against cryptography 46.0.4: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], PYSEC-2026-35.
Warning — 203 finding(s)
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium CVE · ×15
Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-2132 uv.lock— click 8.1.8: PYSEC-2026-2132 — upgrade to 8.3.3
Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-2132 uv.lock— click 8.3.1: PYSEC-2026-2132 — upgrade to 8.3.3
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— filelock 3.16.1: [GHSA redacted] — filelock is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain filelock to >=3.20.3 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against filelock 3.16.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.20.3 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.20.3 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against filelock 3.16.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— filelock 3.19.1: [GHSA redacted] — filelock is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain filelock to >=3.20.3 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against filelock 3.19.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.20.3 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.20.3 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against filelock 3.19.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— idna 3.11: [GHSA redacted] — idna is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain idna to >=3.15 in your constraints/requirements file).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— marshmallow 3.22.0: [GHSA redacted] — marshmallow is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain marshmallow to >=3.26.2 in your constraints/requirements file).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— marshmallow 4.0.1: [GHSA redacted] — marshmallow is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain marshmallow to >=4.1.2 in your constraints/requirements file).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— pip 25.0.1: [GHSA redacted] — pip is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain pip to >=25.3 in your constraints/requirements file). This one row stands for the 5 advisories this scan raises against pip 25.0.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], PYSEC-2026-1796.
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— pip 26.0.1: [GHSA redacted] — pip is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain pip to >=26.1 in your constraints/requirements file). This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against pip 26.0.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 26.1.2 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 26.1.2 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against pip 26.0.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-2987 uv.lock— pygments 2.19.2: PYSEC-2026-2987 — pygments is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain pygments to >=2.20.0 in your constraints/requirements file).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— pytest 8.3.5: [GHSA redacted] — this repo declares pytest 7.0.0, but the vulnerable 8.3.5 is a SEPARATE copy on another release line, so editing your own pytest entry cannot move it: upgrade the dependency that pulls it in (or constrain pytest to >=9.0.3 in your constraints/requirements file).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— pytest 8.4.2: [GHSA redacted] — this repo declares pytest 7.0.0, but the vulnerable 8.4.2 is a SEPARATE copy on another release line, so editing your own pytest entry cannot move it: upgrade the dependency that pulls it in (or constrain pytest to >=9.0.3 in your constraints/requirements file).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— pytest 9.0.2: [GHSA redacted] — this repo declares pytest 7.0.0, but the vulnerable 9.0.2 is a SEPARATE copy on another release line, so editing your own pytest entry cannot move it: upgrade the dependency that pulls it in (or constrain pytest to >=9.0.3 in your constraints/requirements file).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— requests 2.32.4: [GHSA redacted] — requests is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain requests to >=2.33.0 in your constraints/requirements file).
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] uv.lock— requests 2.32.5: [GHSA redacted] — requests is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or constrain requests to >=2.33.0 in your constraints/requirements file).
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) examples/async_orchestration.py:128— examples/async_orchestration.py:128-137 | examples/data_processing.py:108-117 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:468— playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:468-477 | playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:306-315 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:77— playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:77-86 | playground/retry_serialization_demo/showcase_scenarios.py:248-257 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:77` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:853— routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:853-862 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:845-854 — 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 (10 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:177— routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:177-186 | routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:165-174 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:177` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) routilux/core/output.py:282— routilux/core/output.py:282-291 | routilux/core/registry.py:408-418 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) routilux/decorators.py:93— routilux/decorators.py:93-102 | routilux/decorators.py:200-209 — 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 (10 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/flows.py:46— routilux/server/routes/flows.py:46-55 | routilux/server/routes/flows.py:855-864 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) playground/analyzer_demo/analyzer_demo.py:202— playground/analyzer_demo/analyzer_demo.py:202-214 | playground/analyzer_demo/analyzer_demo.py:222-234 — 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 (13 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:94— routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:94-106 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:85-97 — 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 (13 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:408— routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:408-420 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:413-425 — 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 (13 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:477— routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:477-489 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:476-488 — 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 (13 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/flows.py:69— routilux/server/routes/flows.py:69-81 | routilux/server/routes/flows.py:963-975 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/server/routes/flows.py:69` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:708— routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:708-720 | routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:891-903 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:201— examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:201-212 | examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:257-268 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:201` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) examples/error_handling_example.py:82— examples/error_handling_example.py:82-93 | examples/error_handling_example.py:115-126 — 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 (12 lines × 2) examples/job_state_management.py:179— examples/job_state_management.py:179-190 | examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:718-729 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:100— examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:100-112 | examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:233-244 — 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 (12 lines × 2) routilux/cli/server_wrapper.py:137— routilux/cli/server_wrapper.py:137-148 | routilux/cli/server_wrapper.py:161-172 — 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 (12 lines × 2) routilux/monitoring/monitor_collector.py:304— routilux/monitoring/monitor_collector.py:304-315 | routilux/monitoring/monitor_collector.py:348-359 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/monitoring/monitor_collector.py:304` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:600— routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:600-619 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:597-616 — 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 (20 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:771— routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:771-790 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:761-780 — 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 (20 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:63— routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:63-82 | routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:63-82 — before extracting anything, compare `routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py` and `routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 94 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:174— routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:174-193 | routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:174-193 — before extracting anything, compare `routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py` and `routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 94 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:91— routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:91-110 | routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:86-105 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:91` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:159— playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:159-173 | playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:67-81 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:362— playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:362-376 | playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:206-220 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:655— routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:655-669 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:654-668 — 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 (15 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:204— routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:204-218 | routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:204-218 — before extracting anything, compare `routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py` and `routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 94 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) routilux/cli/commands/list.py:110— routilux/cli/commands/list.py:110-124 | routilux/cli/commands/list.py:238-254 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/cli/commands/list.py:238` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:187— playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:187-207 | playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:93-113 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:301— playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:301-327 | playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:155-175 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:117— routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:117-137 | routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:117-137 — before extracting anything, compare `routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py` and `routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 94 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:96— routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:96-116 | routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:129-150 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:96` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) examples/retry_with_router_demo.py:171— examples/retry_with_router_demo.py:171-186 | examples/retry_with_router_demo.py:243-256 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:57— routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:57-70 | routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:52-65 — 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 (14 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:205— routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:205-218 | routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:193-206 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/workers.py:680— routilux/server/routes/workers.py:680-693 | routilux/server/routes/workers.py:817-830 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) examples/basic_example.py:85— examples/basic_example.py:85-95 | playground/analyzer_demo/analyzer_demo.py:145-153 — 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) examples/job_state_management.py:52— examples/job_state_management.py:52-60 | examples/job_state_management.py:166-175 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/execute.py:277— routilux/server/routes/execute.py:277-285 | routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:248-256 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/server/routes/execute.py:277` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:69— routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:69-77 | routilux/server/routes/workers.py:59-67 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:69` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) playground/concurrent_execution_demo/concurrent_demo.py:56— playground/concurrent_execution_demo/concurrent_demo.py:56-63 | playground/concurrent_execution_demo/concurrent_demo.py:232-239 — 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) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:444— playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:444-451 | playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:283-290 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:456— playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:456-463 | playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:295-302 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:330— routilux/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:330-337 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:335-342 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
FileTooLong: routes/websocket.py routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:0— FileTooLong — 528 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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: analyzers/workflow.py routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:0— FileTooLong — 512 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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: analyzers/workflow.py routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:0— FileTooLong — 510 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:149— routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:149-166 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:140-157 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:149` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:21— routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:21-38 | routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py:21-38 — before extracting anything, compare `routilux/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py` and `routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/routine_markdown.py` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 94 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:372— routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:372-400 | routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:561-578 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) playground/misconfiguration_demo/misconfiguration_demo.py:298— playground/misconfiguration_demo/misconfiguration_demo.py:298-313 | playground/misconfiguration_demo/misconfiguration_demo.py:405-420 — 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 (16 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:433— routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:433-448 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:436-451 — 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 (16 lines × 2) routilux/monitoring/monitor_collector.py:430— routilux/monitoring/monitor_collector.py:430-445 | routilux/monitoring/monitor_collector.py:467-482 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/monitoring/monitor_collector.py:430` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) playground/misconfiguration_demo/misconfiguration_demo.py:380— playground/misconfiguration_demo/misconfiguration_demo.py:380-390 | playground/misconfiguration_demo/misconfiguration_demo.py:426-436 — 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 (11 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:417— routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:417-427 | routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:597-607 — 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 (11 lines × 2) tools/analyze_codebase_ast.py:233— tools/analyze_codebase_ast.py:233-244 | tools/analyze_codebase_ast.py:275-285 — 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) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:66— playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:66-72 | playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:489-495 — 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) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:871— routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:871-877 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:880-886 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/discovery.py:281— routilux/server/routes/discovery.py:281-287 | routilux/server/routes/discovery.py:382-388 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/server/routes/discovery.py:281` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
RoutineAnalyzer._analyze_method (cognitive 23) routilux/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:374— RoutineAnalyzer._analyze_method has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, boolean chains 1, loops 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.
RoutineAnalyzer._analyze_method (cognitive 23) routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:379— RoutineAnalyzer._analyze_method has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, boolean chains 1, loops 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.
WorkflowAnalyzer._analyze_routine (cognitive 20) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:110— WorkflowAnalyzer._analyze_routine has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, loops 4, boolean chains 2, ternaries 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.
WorkflowAnalyzer._analyze_routine (cognitive 20) routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:101— WorkflowAnalyzer._analyze_routine has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, loops 4, boolean chains 2, ternaries 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.
WorkflowD2Formatter._format_routine_node (cognitive 20) routilux/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:90— WorkflowD2Formatter._format_routine_node has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, loops 4 (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.
WorkflowD2Formatter._format_routine_node (cognitive 20) routilux/tools/analysis/exporters/workflow_d2.py:85— WorkflowD2Formatter._format_routine_node has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, loops 4 (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.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:246— routilux/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:246-267 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:255-276 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/data_transformer.py:87— routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/data_transformer.py:87-108 | routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/data_validator.py:88-109 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
ConditionalRouter._handle_input (cyclomatic 33) routilux/builtin_routines/control_flow/conditional_router.py:117— ConditionalRouter._handle_input has cyclomatic complexity 33 (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.
WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_routine_node (cyclomatic 33) routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:553— WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_routine_node has cyclomatic complexity 33 (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.
enhanced_retry_demo.host_b_load_and_resume (cyclomatic 32) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:418— enhanced_retry_demo.host_b_load_and_resume 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.
WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_routine_node (cyclomatic 32) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:556— WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_routine_node 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.
ConcurrentExecutionMonitor.print_timeline (cyclomatic 31) playground/concurrent_execution_demo/concurrent_demo.py:71— ConcurrentExecutionMonitor.print_timeline has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ObjectFactory.load_flow_from_dsl (cyclomatic 30) routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:528— ObjectFactory.load_flow_from_dsl has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
DataValidator._handle_input (cyclomatic 28) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/data_validator.py:87— DataValidator._handle_input 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.
run.run (cyclomatic 27) routilux/cli/commands/run.py:74— run.run 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.
analyze_codebase_ast.format_compact_doc (cyclomatic 27) tools/analyze_codebase_ast.py:195— analyze_codebase_ast.format_compact_doc 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.
breakpoint_condition.evaluate_condition (cyclomatic 24) routilux/monitoring/breakpoint_condition.py:15— breakpoint_condition.evaluate_condition has cyclomatic complexity 24 (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.
websocket.job_monitor_websocket (cyclomatic 23) routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:239— websocket.job_monitor_websocket has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.
websocket.job_debug_websocket (cyclomatic 22) routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:433— websocket.job_debug_websocket has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ObjectFactory.create (cyclomatic 22) routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:183— ObjectFactory.create has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
enhanced_retry_demo.verify_results_comprehensive (cyclomatic 21) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:591— enhanced_retry_demo.verify_results_comprehensive has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.
RetryHandler._run_logic (cyclomatic 21) routilux/builtin_routines/reliability/retry_handler.py:116— RetryHandler._run_logic has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.
WorkerExecutor._execute_task (cyclomatic 21) routilux/core/executor.py:239— WorkerExecutor._execute_task has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.
Aggregator._activation_policy (cyclomatic 20) routilux/builtin_routines/control_flow/aggregator.py:108— Aggregator._activation_policy 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.
execute.execute_flow (cyclomatic 20) routilux/server/routes/execute.py:28— execute.execute_flow 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.
websocket.flow_monitor_websocket (cyclomatic 20) routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:613— websocket.flow_monitor_websocket has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.
WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_connection (cyclomatic 19) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:725— WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_connection has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
Filter._evaluate_condition (cyclomatic 19) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/filter.py:128— Filter._evaluate_condition has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Runtime.handle_event_emit (cyclomatic 18) routilux/core/runtime.py:314— Runtime.handle_event_emit 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.
Runtime._check_routine_activation (cyclomatic 18) routilux/core/runtime.py:495— Runtime._check_routine_activation 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.
ObjectFactory.export_flow_to_dsl (cyclomatic 18) routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:420— ObjectFactory.export_flow_to_dsl 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.
ToolExecutor.execute_tool (cyclomatic 17) examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:99— ToolExecutor.execute_tool has cyclomatic complexity 17 (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.
Mapper._extract_value (cyclomatic 17) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/mapper.py:196— Mapper._extract_value has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_connection (cyclomatic 17) routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:724— WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_connection has cyclomatic complexity 17 (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.
ResultValidator.validate_result (cyclomatic 16) examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:173— ResultValidator.validate_result has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
list._list_flows (cyclomatic 16) routilux/cli/commands/list.py:196— list._list_flows has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
analyze_codebase_ast.format_compact_doc (cognitive 115) tools/analyze_codebase_ast.py:195— analyze_codebase_ast.format_compact_doc has cognitive complexity 115 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 93, loops 22 (nesting depth added 89). 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.
enhanced_retry_demo.host_b_load_and_resume (cognitive 82) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:418— enhanced_retry_demo.host_b_load_and_resume has cognitive complexity 82 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 55, loops 21, ternaries 4, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 50). 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.
ConditionalRouter._handle_input (cognitive 81) routilux/builtin_routines/control_flow/conditional_router.py:117— ConditionalRouter._handle_input has cognitive complexity 81 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 70, error handling 5, boolean chains 3, loops 3 (nesting depth added 50). 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.
ConcurrentExecutionMonitor.print_timeline (cognitive 66) playground/concurrent_execution_demo/concurrent_demo.py:71— ConcurrentExecutionMonitor.print_timeline has cognitive complexity 66 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 38, loops 18, ternaries 9, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 35). 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.
WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_routine_node (cognitive 58) routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:553— WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_routine_node has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 48, loops 6, boolean chains 4 (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.
RetryHandler._run_logic (cognitive 57) routilux/builtin_routines/reliability/retry_handler.py:116— RetryHandler._run_logic has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31, error handling 14, ternaries 5, boolean chains 4, loops 3 (nesting depth added 35). 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.
DataValidator._handle_input (cognitive 55) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/data_validator.py:87— DataValidator._handle_input has cognitive complexity 55 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 43, boolean chains 6, loops 6 (nesting depth added 31). 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.
WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_routine_node (cognitive 54) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:556— WorkflowAnalyzer._format_ultimate_routine_node has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 44, loops 6, boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 24). 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.
ObjectFactory.load_flow_from_dsl (cognitive 48) routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:528— ObjectFactory.load_flow_from_dsl has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 36, boolean chains 6, error handling 4, loops 2 (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.
ObjectFactory.create (cognitive 45) routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:183— ObjectFactory.create has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26, loops 8, boolean chains 6, ternaries 5 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
breakpoint_condition.evaluate_condition (cognitive 43) routilux/monitoring/breakpoint_condition.py:15— breakpoint_condition.evaluate_condition has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 32, boolean chains 4, error handling 4, loops 3 (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.
run.run (cognitive 41) routilux/cli/commands/run.py:74— run.run has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 29, error handling 6, boolean chains 3, ternaries 2, 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.
enhanced_retry_demo.verify_results_comprehensive (cognitive 40) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:591— enhanced_retry_demo.verify_results_comprehensive has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 32, loops 5, ternaries 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WorkerExecutor._execute_task (cognitive 40) routilux/core/executor.py:239— WorkerExecutor._execute_task has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 32, boolean chains 3, loops 3, error handling 1, ternaries 1 (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.
Filter._evaluate_condition (cognitive 37) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/filter.py:128— Filter._evaluate_condition has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 32, error handling 2, loops 2, boolean chains 1 (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.
Aggregator._activation_policy (cognitive 36) routilux/builtin_routines/control_flow/aggregator.py:108— Aggregator._activation_policy has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 32, boolean chains 3, loops 1 (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.
list._list_flows (cognitive 36) routilux/cli/commands/list.py:196— list._list_flows has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, loops 14, error handling 4 (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.
execute.execute_flow (cognitive 34) routilux/server/routes/execute.py:28— execute.execute_flow has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21, ternaries 6, error handling 5, boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Runtime.handle_event_emit (cognitive 33) routilux/core/runtime.py:314— Runtime.handle_event_emit has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25, error handling 4, ternaries 3, loops 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.
websocket.job_monitor_websocket (cognitive 33) routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:239— websocket.job_monitor_websocket has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, error handling 9, ternaries 6, boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ExecutionMonitor.log_event (cognitive 31) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:45— ExecutionMonitor.log_event has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22, loops 8, boolean chains 1 (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.
validate._print_validation_result (cognitive 30) routilux/cli/commands/validate.py:125— validate._print_validation_result has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17, loops 12, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
websocket.job_debug_websocket (cognitive 30) routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:433— websocket.job_debug_websocket has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, error handling 9, boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ObjectFactory.export_flow_to_dsl (cognitive 30) routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:420— ObjectFactory.export_flow_to_dsl has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24, boolean chains 4, loops 2 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ObjectFactory.register (cognitive 29) routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:63— ObjectFactory.register has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, ternaries 11, boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WorkerExecutor._event_loop (cognitive 27) routilux/core/executor.py:149— WorkerExecutor._event_loop has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, error handling 10, loops 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.
ResultExtractor._format_interpreter_output (cognitive 25) routilux/builtin_routines/text_processing/result_extractor.py:484— ResultExtractor._format_interpreter_output has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19, boolean chains 5, loops 1 (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.
Runtime._check_routine_activation (cognitive 24) routilux/core/runtime.py:495— Runtime._check_routine_activation has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17, boolean chains 2, error handling 2, ternaries 2, loops 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.
Aggregator._merge_data (cognitive 23) routilux/builtin_routines/control_flow/aggregator.py:200— Aggregator._merge_data has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, loops 9 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
list._list_routines (cognitive 23) routilux/cli/commands/list.py:95— list._list_routines has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, loops 8, boolean chains 4 (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.
enable_all_tests.enable_test_in_file (cognitive 22) enable_all_tests.py:9— enable_all_tests.enable_test_in_file has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, boolean chains 3, ternaries 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Flow.validate (cognitive 22) routilux/core/flow.py:356— Flow.validate has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 4, loops 4 (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.
Flow.deserialize (cognitive 22) routilux/core/flow.py:419— Flow.deserialize has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, boolean chains 5, loops 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WebSocketManager.disconnect (cognitive 22) routilux/monitoring/websocket_manager.py:155— WebSocketManager.disconnect has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, error handling 8, loops 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.
websocket.flow_monitor_websocket (cognitive 22) routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:613— websocket.flow_monitor_websocket has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: error handling 10, if/else 8, loops 3, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 3). 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.
ConcurrentExecutionMonitor.print_detailed_report (cognitive 21) playground/concurrent_execution_demo/concurrent_demo.py:231— ConcurrentExecutionMonitor.print_detailed_report has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, loops 7, boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
cross_host_demo.host_b_load_and_resume (cognitive 21) playground/llm_agent_cross_host/cross_host_demo.py:166— cross_host_demo.host_b_load_and_resume has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, loops 7 (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.
Mapper._extract_value (cognitive 21) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/mapper.py:196— Mapper._extract_value has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, error handling 5, boolean chains 3 (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.
list._list_flows_from_server (cognitive 21) routilux/cli/commands/list.py:152— list._list_flows_from_server has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 8, if/else 7, boolean chains 2, error handling 2, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
flows._flow_to_response (cognitive 21) routilux/server/routes/flows.py:34— flows._flow_to_response has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 10, if/else 4, boolean chains 3, error handling 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Splitter._run_logic (cognitive 20) routilux/builtin_routines/control_flow/splitter.py:89— Splitter._run_logic has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, loops 3, error handling 2, boolean chains 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DataTransformer._handle_input (cognitive 20) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/data_transformer.py:86— DataTransformer._handle_input has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10, ternaries 4, boolean chains 3, error handling 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ResultExtractor._extract_with_strategy (cognitive 20) routilux/builtin_routines/text_processing/result_extractor.py:180— ResultExtractor._extract_with_strategy has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17, error handling 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
spec_parser.parse_spec (cognitive 20) routilux/tools/dsl/spec_parser.py:14— spec_parser.parse_spec has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, loops 3, 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.
llm_agent_complex_demo.test_basic_execution (cognitive 19) examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:438— llm_agent_complex_demo.test_basic_execution has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DataAggregator._custom_merge (cognitive 19) playground/analyzer_demo/demo_routines.py:165— DataAggregator._custom_merge has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10, ternaries 8, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Debouncer._activation_policy (cognitive 19) routilux/builtin_routines/control_flow/debouncer.py:78— Debouncer._activation_policy has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 3, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
server_wrapper.load_flows_from_directory (cognitive 19) routilux/cli/server_wrapper.py:110— server_wrapper.load_flows_from_directory has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: error handling 12, if/else 5, loops 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WorkerManager.shutdown (cognitive 19) routilux/core/manager.py:191— WorkerManager.shutdown has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, error handling 3, loops 3, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WorkflowAnalyzer._format_dependency_section (cognitive 19) routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:808— WorkflowAnalyzer._format_dependency_section has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 9, if/else 8, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
llm_agent_complex_demo.test_complex_scenario (cognitive 18) examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:648— llm_agent_complex_demo.test_complex_scenario has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, loops 5, ternaries 4 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Filter._run_logic (cognitive 18) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/filter.py:95— Filter._run_logic has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, ternaries 4, error handling 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WorkerRegistry._cleanup_completed_workers (cognitive 18) routilux/core/registry.py:359— WorkerRegistry._cleanup_completed_workers has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, loops 4, error handling 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.
Runtime.post (cognitive 18) routilux/core/runtime.py:192— Runtime.post has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
MonitorService.get_routine_execution_status (cognitive 18) routilux/monitoring/monitor_service.py:101— MonitorService.get_routine_execution_status has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, boolean chains 4, ternaries 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ResultAggregator._process_aggregated_results (cognitive 17) examples/aggregator_demo.py:124— ResultAggregator._process_aggregated_results has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10, ternaries 4, loops 3 (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.
ResultValidator.validate_result (cognitive 17) examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:173— ResultValidator.validate_result has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, boolean chains 8 (nesting depth added 3). 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.
Mapper._extract_dot_path (cognitive 17) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/mapper.py:305— Mapper._extract_dot_path has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WorkerState.deserialize (cognitive 17) routilux/core/worker.py:400— WorkerState.deserialize has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 6, error handling 5, if/else 4, boolean chains 1, 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.
WorkerState.wait_for_completion (cognitive 17) routilux/core/worker.py:429— WorkerState.wait_for_completion has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 1, loops 1, ternaries 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.
security.safe_evaluate (cognitive 17) routilux/server/security.py:143— security.safe_evaluate has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: error handling 13, if/else 4 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ASTAnalyzer.visit_ClassDef (cognitive 17) tools/analyze_codebase_ast.py:25— ASTAnalyzer.visit_ClassDef has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, loops 4, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WorkflowAnalyzer._format_dependency_section (cognitive 16) routilux/analysis/analyzers/workflow.py:818— WorkflowAnalyzer._format_dependency_section has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 9, if/else 7 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
Mapper._map_item (cognitive 16) routilux/builtin_routines/data_processing/mapper.py:144— Mapper._map_item has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10, loops 3, error handling 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BreakpointManager.check_slot_breakpoint (cognitive 16) routilux/monitoring/breakpoint_manager.py:113— BreakpointManager.check_slot_breakpoint has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, error handling 3, boolean chains 1, 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.
websocket.normalize_event_for_frontend (cognitive 16) routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:55— websocket.normalize_event_for_frontend has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
security.check_ast_safety (cognitive 16) routilux/server/security.py:111— security.check_ast_safety has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ObjectFactory.list_available (cognitive 16) routilux/tools/factory/factory.py:289— ObjectFactory.list_available has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, boolean chains 2, loops 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.
Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity. 25 floating ref(s) across 4 workflow file(s). Each floating ref is itemized at file:line by the SAST (D29) lens.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing· PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block · ×1
PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block — 3 workflow(s) triggered by pull_request declare no `permissions:` block (security.yml, ci.yml, benchmark.yml) and so run with the repository's default GITHUB_TOKEN scope, while 1 sibling workflow in the same repository is already scoped. Pull-request runs build the least-trusted code in the repository; give each of these workflows its own least-privilege block — `permissions: {contents: read}` at the top of the workflow, widened per job only where a job genuinely writes.
Duplicated block (89 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:240— routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:240-333 | routilux/server/routes/websocket.py:434-522 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (85 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/workers.py:562— routilux/server/routes/workers.py:562-648 | routilux/server/routes/workers.py:700-784 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/server/routes/workers.py:562` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (84 lines × 3) routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:1212— routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:1212-1295 | routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:1322-1413 | routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:1544-1658 — 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.
Duplicated block (83 lines × 4) routilux/server/routes/workers.py:372— routilux/server/routes/workers.py:372-458 | routilux/server/routes/workers.py:996-1099 | routilux/server/routes/workers.py:1162-1284 | routilux/server/routes/workers.py:1311-1393 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `routilux/server/routes/workers.py:372` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (74 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/discovery.py:30— routilux/server/routes/discovery.py:30-103 | routilux/server/routes/discovery.py:108-182 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (63 lines × 2) routilux/server/routes/breakpoints.py:41— routilux/server/routes/breakpoints.py:41-124 | routilux/server/routes/breakpoints.py:273-335 — 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 (34 lines × 2) routilux/simple.py:97— routilux/simple.py:97-140 | routilux/simple.py:185-218 — 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 (29 lines × 2) routilux/core/runtime.py:128— routilux/core/runtime.py:128-156 | routilux/core/runtime.py:202-236 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) playground/concurrent_execution_demo/data_generator_routines.py:48— playground/concurrent_execution_demo/data_generator_routines.py:48-74 | playground/concurrent_execution_demo/data_generator_routines.py:113-141 — 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 (25 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:214— routilux/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:214-238 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:223-247 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) routilux/server/storage/memory.py:95— routilux/server/storage/memory.py:95-121 | routilux/server/storage/memory.py:136-159 — 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 (23 lines × 2) routilux/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:375— routilux/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:375-397 | routilux/tools/analysis/analyzers/routine.py:380-402 — 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 (20 lines × 5) routilux/monitoring/monitor_service.py:192— routilux/monitoring/monitor_service.py:192-213 | routilux/monitoring/monitor_service.py:284-304 | routilux/monitoring/monitor_service.py:327-347 | routilux/monitoring/monitor_service.py:375-394 | routilux/monitoring/monitor_service.py:411-431 — all 5 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.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 4) playground/concurrent_execution_demo/data_generator_routines.py:94— playground/concurrent_execution_demo/data_generator_routines.py:94-113 | playground/concurrent_execution_demo/data_generator_routines.py:162-181 | playground/concurrent_execution_demo/data_generator_routines.py:236-255 | playground/concurrent_execution_demo/data_generator_routines.py:311-330 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:419— playground/retry_serialization_demo/enhanced_retry_demo.py:419-435 | playground/retry_serialization_demo/retry_demo.py:261-280 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 3) routilux/server/routes/workers.py:1088— routilux/server/routes/workers.py:1088-1104 | routilux/server/routes/workers.py:1273-1288 | routilux/server/routes/workers.py:1483-1499 — 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:1107— routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:1107-1117 | routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:1135-1145 | routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:1163-1173 | routilux/server/routes/jobs.py:1191-1201 — 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.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 7) examples/aggregator_demo.py:190— examples/aggregator_demo.py:190-197 | examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:226-234 | examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:281-287 | examples/data_pipeline.py:170-177 | examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:320-330 | playground/analyzer_demo/analyzer_demo.py:97-105 | playground/concurrent_execution_demo/concurrent_demo.py:309-316 — there are 7 copies across 6 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 7 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `examples/llm_agent_complex_demo.py:320` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:243— examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:243-250 | examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:292-297 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:313— examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:313-317 | examples/concurrent_flow_demo.py:458-462 — 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.
Low: dynamic-urllib-use-detected routilux/cli/commands/job.py:145— Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control the URLs, or consider using the 'requests' library instead. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Low: dynamic-urllib-use-detected routilux/cli/commands/job.py:196— Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control the URLs, or consider using the 'requests' library instead. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Low: dynamic-urllib-use-detected routilux/cli/commands/job.py:242— Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control the URLs, or consider using the 'requests' library instead. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Low: dynamic-urllib-use-detected routilux/cli/commands/list.py:161— Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control the URLs, or consider using the 'requests' library instead. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Low: dynamic-urllib-use-detected routilux/cli/commands/server.py:262— Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control the URLs, or consider using the 'requests' library instead. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Low: wildcard-cors routilux/server/main.py:162— CORS policy allows any origin (using wildcard '*'). This is insecure and should be avoided.
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not included · ×1
Test reliability not included — Test source is present (.py) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D16 · Bus Factor· Small-team knowledge concentration · ×1
Small-team knowledge concentration — 33 file(s) are concentrated to one author — the ambient state with 2 active author(s), not 33 separate risks. The signal becomes meaningful as ownership spreads; no per-file action implied now.
No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI — nothing binds a released artifact to the build that produced it, so a consumer cannot tell your artifact from a substituted one. On GitHub Actions, `actions/attest-build-provenance` (or slsa-github-generator) emits one from the job's own OIDC identity; elsewhere, run `cosign attest` over the released artifact from the release pipeline and publish the attestation beside it.
No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI — sign your released artifacts with whatever your ecosystem ships (a GPG/minisign detached signature — or `cosign sign-blob` — over the release archives, or over a checksum file published alongside them, PEP 740 attestations via `pypa/gh-action-pypi-publish` under PyPI Trusted Publishing (OIDC) for wheels/sdists) so consumers can verify what you built.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing· No SBOM · ×1
No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (`cyclonedx-py` over the resolved Python environment/lockfile, `syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.
Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector — Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a coverage step in CI (`--cov=`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.py), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored.
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· Dependency hygiene not measured · ×1
Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene — This repository's dependency manifest (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry)) was found, but this pass cannot parse it for hygiene, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D38 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
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.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
0
—
Run 019fcf3b-6164-719f-bc89-eac9754f827d · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 45 · Warnings: 203 · Recommendations: 12 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 05-08-2026 @ 00:03 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.