mbraceproject/MBrace.Core

Executive summary

mbraceproject/MBrace.Core scores 51 out of 100, which would normally be rated Adequate, but it is rated Weak because its weakest group of dimensions, Dependencies, is rated Critical. The standard never rates a score more than one step above its weakest group, so a high average can't hide a weak area.

The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 37 and is rated Weak. Its Security & performance tooling dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene and to resolve the 19 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 51 to about 61.

Two findings are critical, all in Dependency Hygiene.

Watchdog couldn't measure License Compliance and IL Efficiency in this code, so those dimensions are left out of the score. The product code is 20,909 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €20,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 95 ★ Exemplary Architecture 92 Adequate, capped by Project Cohesion Maturity 47 Weak, capped by Knowledge Freshness and Architecture documentation Production Readiness 37 Weak, capped by Dependency Hygiene, Security & performance tooling and Library API & versioning Security and Compliance 73 Adequate, capped by Platform End-of-Life Performance 70 Adequate

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

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

Production Readiness 37 · counts for 46%Maturity 47 · counts for 25%Performance 70 · counts for 14%Security and Compliance 73 · counts for 8%Architecture 92 · counts for 4%Code Health 95 · counts for 2%

If Production Readiness rose from 37 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 51 to about 61.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Supporting code 15%Tests 85%

Rebuild cost: about €20,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€6,600 to €33,000, for 109 to 347 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Low, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 51. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 20,909 lines of product code
Comment lines	The estimate prices 19,664 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 20,909 lines but aren't priced as work.

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

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

Raises the score by about 7 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Resolve the 19 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

Raises the score by about 13 points · Medium effort · Dependency Hygiene

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.

Raises the score by about 6 points · Low effort · ADR Quality

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €20,000 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 37 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

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

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

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 7 points for low effort, because it clears the 2 Dependency Hygiene findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

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

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

109 modules, with 127 dependencies between them. One loop runs through 3 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 69 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 Core.Internals.Utils	2 Runtime.Utils.Utils	3 Library	4 Core.Internals	5 Core	9 Runtime.Store	10 Runtime.Utils	15 Core.Tests	17 Flow	19 Runtime	20 Runtime.Components.StoreCloudValueImpl	22 ThreadPool	29 Runtime.Components	31 ThreadPool.Internals	32 Thespian.Runtime	34 Thespian	37 Thespian.Runtime.WorkerSubscription	38 Thespian.Runtime.WorkerController
1 Core.Internals.Utils
2 Runtime.Utils.Utils
3 Library				8	8
4 Core.Internals			2		29
5 Core				10
6 Core.Internals.CloudFileStoreUtils				1
7 Core.Internals.Continuation				1
8 Core.Internals.ExceptionDispatchInfoModule				1
9 Runtime.Store				2
10 Runtime.Utils				1
11 Core.BuilderAsyncExtensions					2
12 Core.BuilderImpl	1			3	3
13 Core.Builders					2
14 Core.CloudOperators					1
15 Core.Tests			1	2	10
16 Core.Tests.Collection Partitioning Tests				3	1
17 Flow				5	13
18 Library.CloudCollectionUtils				7	1
19 Runtime	3	1	1	14	26
20 Runtime.Components.StoreCloudValueImpl				4	3		1
21 Thespian.Runtime.ActorCloudDictionary				1	2
22 ThreadPool				10	9
23 Core.Tests.CloudTree			1		1			1
24 Flow.CloudFlowModule					4				2
25 Flow.Fluent					3				2
26 Flow.Internals.Consumers.Fold					1				1
27 Flow.Internals.NonDeterministic					1				1
28 Runtime.Combinators				2	4					4
29 Runtime.Components			3	20	9					30	7	2
30 Runtime.Tests				3	16			9				1
31 ThreadPool.Internals				8	34							3
32 Thespian.Runtime		1	7	9	6	1	1			71			14
33 ThreadPool.Internals.EmulatedValue					1									1
34 Thespian				4	3					6					2
35 Thespian.Runtime.ActorResultAggregator			1							4			2		1
36 Thespian.Runtime.WorkItemLeaseMonitor										2					4
37 Thespian.Runtime.WorkerSubscription										4					4
38 Thespian.Runtime.WorkerController				2						1					2		1
39 Thespian.Tests				2	11			7								1
40 Thespian.Runtime.WorkerConfiguration										1								2

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 95% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 8.4 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 7.4 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 8.9 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.1 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0

At a glance — Architecture · 92% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.6 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0

The Ugly

D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 4.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 47% · Weak · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 8.0

The Ugly

D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 3.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 37% · Weak · gated by D12, P3, P10 ·

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Ugly

D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 1.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 2.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 73% · Adequate · gated by D44 ·

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0

The Ugly

D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 2.0

At a glance — Performance · 70% · Adequate ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

The Bad

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

Roadmap

Begin by resolving the outdated and vulnerable dependencies to secure the codebase, then immediately address the 97 orphaned files, prioritizing Utils.fs, Combinators.fs, and CloudProcess.fs. Concurrently, establish a structured approach to architecture documentation by recording significant design decisions in a dedicated folder with clear context and consequences. Finally, ensure these architectural records are formally recognized to close the gap in ADR quality and maintain long-term knowledge freshness.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+7.2 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 19 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+12.7 pts	Medium	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+6.1 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+5.0 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Cloud.cs.	+4.5 pts	Low	Comment Value
Resolve the 97 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Utils.fs (4), Combinators.fs (2), CloudProcess.fs (2).	+7.8 pts	Medium	Knowledge Freshness
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+6.2 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Make types internal by default and expose only the deliberate public API — even for a small library, every public type is a stability contract.	+5.3 pts	Medium	Library API & versioning

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 37 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 51% mixed · 49% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: Combinators.runParallel (cyclomatic 21)
src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs	7.1	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: Combinators.Parallel (cyclomatic 22)
src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs	7.1	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: BuilderImpl.tryFinally (cognitive 19)
src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs	7.2	Mixed	God Classes: TooManyMethods: CloudFileClient
src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs	7.2	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (31 lines × 2)
src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs	7.3	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)
src/MBrace.Core/Library/CloudCollectionUtils.fs	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: CloudCollection.PartitionBySize (cyclomatic 25)
src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs	7.4	Mixed	God Classes: TooManyFunctions: CloudFlowModule
src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Distinct.fs	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)
src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)
src/MBrace.Thespian/Runtime/WorkerManager.fs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: WorkerManager.Create (cyclomatic 25)
src/MBrace.Runtime/Utils/TypePrinter.fs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: PrettyPrintImpl.prettyPrint (cyclomatic 22)
src/MBrace.Runtime/Utils/RecordPrinter.fs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: Record.PrettyPrint (cyclomatic 21)
src/MBrace.Thespian/Worker/Controller.fs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: WorkerController.initController (cyclomatic 21)
src/MBrace.Flow/Producers/CloudCollection.fs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: CloudCollection.ToCloudFlow (cyclomatic 17)
src/MBrace.Core/Utils/TextReaders.fs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: StreamLineReader.ReadLine (cyclomatic 16)
src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 3)
src/MBrace.Thespian/MBrace.Thespian.fsproj	7.9	Mixed	Platform End-of-Life: End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.0
tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests.csproj	7.9	Mixed	Platform End-of-Life: End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.1
src/MBrace.Thespian/Worker/Configuration.fs	8.5	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: WorkerConfiguration.ToCommandLineArgs (cyclomatic 23)

How the grades work

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

Critical — 2

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 82

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 169

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

Could not be resolved — 4

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 58 of 63 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 63 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D15D17D19D20D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D34D35D44AX10AX3AX4AX5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P6PF1PF2PF3X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32

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, 194 of 253 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16ac1-7718-7772-b523-09073bfe27b2.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 29 test(s) behind this row are the ones the C# collector could read, and this repository also carries at least 22 test source file(s) (.fs) that it cannot: it parses C# syntax and matches C# test attributes, so a vitest/jest/JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — this repository's projects are MSBuild/NuGet projects, whose package licenses are exactly what this dimension reads, but no license could be resolved for them (the .NET license collector did not run, or restore failed). A gap in the analysis run, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Every one of the 100 significant source file(s) was last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains, so there is no concentration to measure — the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness).
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Cannot open project 'src/MBrace.Core/MBrace.Core.fsproj' because the file extension '.fsproj' is not associated with a language.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 0 deducted marker(s) and the 0.0/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (18,795 lines, 90% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's build of this repository exited 1 and the cause could not be attributed, so no assemblies were produced and there was no IL to read. We do not read it as a defect in the repository: an unattributed failure leans OURS. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
P1 CI/CD gates — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

13 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was CloudCollection.PartitionBySize at 25. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being ActorCloudDictionary.init at 16 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/MBrace.Thespian/Primitives/CloudDictionary.fs (ActorCloudDictionary.init at 16). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

CloudCollection.PartitionBySize (cyclomatic 25)src/MBrace.Core/Library/CloudCollectionUtils.fs:223

WorkerManager.Create (cyclomatic 25)src/MBrace.Thespian/Runtime/WorkerManager.fs:161

WorkerConfiguration.ToCommandLineArgs (cyclomatic 23)src/MBrace.Thespian/Worker/Configuration.fs:99

PrettyPrintImpl.prettyPrint (cyclomatic 22)src/MBrace.Runtime/Utils/TypePrinter.fs:75

ThreadPoolRuntime.Create (cyclomatic 22)src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolClient.fs:156

+ 8 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 13 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with CloudCollection.PartitionBySize (cyclomatic 25), WorkerManager.Create (cyclomatic 25), WorkerConfiguration.ToCommandLineArgs (cyclomatic 23). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 13 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.4 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

15 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was StreamLineReader.ReadLine at 57.

StreamLineReader.ReadLine (cognitive 57)src/MBrace.Core/Utils/TextReaders.fs:21

CloudCollection.PartitionBySize (cognitive 38)src/MBrace.Core/Library/CloudCollectionUtils.fs:223

Combinators.runParallel (cognitive 38)src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:45

Combinators.Parallel (cognitive 35)src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:69

CloudCollection.ToCloudFlow (cognitive 32)src/MBrace.Flow/Producers/CloudCollection.fs:24

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

What to do

Bring the 15 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with StreamLineReader.ReadLine (cognitive 57), CloudCollection.PartitionBySize (cognitive 38), Combinators.runParallel (cognitive 38). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 15 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 7.4 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: CloudFileClient · ×3src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:496

TooManyFunctions: CloudFlowModule · ×2src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs:269

What to do

Resolve the 3 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with StoreClient.fs, FluentExtensions.fs, FileSystemStore.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with Combinators.fs, Builders.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.1 / 10Stronggated by 39 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

39 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×5src/MBrace.Core/Utils/AsyncExtensions.fs:41

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Continuation.fs:239

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×4src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:105

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×2src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:953

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:776

+ 20 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Combinators.fs (2), AsyncExtensions.fs, CloudAtom.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Continuation.fs, Combinators.fs, NonDeterminstic.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Fold.fs, Combinators.fs, ThreadPoolCombinators.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 64 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

29 test methods: 29 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 skipped, 17 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 29 tests (1 harness-style project(s) excluded from the assertion penalty). Measured on the C# suite only — at least 22 test source file(s) (.fs) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

No direct assertions: OfArray_ToArray · ×17tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:32

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

39 outdated, 2 vulnerable, 3 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: Newtonsoft.Json · ×2

Deprecated: Microsoft.DotNet.InternalAbstractions · ×3

Outdated: FSharp.Core · ×19

Outdated: Streams · ×20

What to do

Resolve the 19 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 2114 LoC in the .NET projects (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (90% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is clear and complete for a project overview (MBrace Core libraries, the cloud programming model, usage of cloud workflows, links to the main website, maintainers), plus an extensive packages/fsi/MathNet.Numerics.MKL.Win-x64 directory README that documents its own tier. The architecture/design docs count at 0 and XML coverage is perfect at 174/174 (100%). There are no visible defects in the summary.

XML-doc coverage: MBrace.CSharpsrc/MBrace.CSharp/MBrace.CSharp.csproj

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README is clear and complete for a project overview (MBrace Core libraries, the cloud programming model, usage of cloud workflows, links to the main website, maintainers), plus an extensive packages/fsi/MathNet.Numerics.MKL.Win-x64 directory README that documents its own tier. The architecture/design docs count at 0 and XML coverage is perfect at 174/174 (100%). There are no visible defects in the summary.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyWeak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

4 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 1063 exposed types.

Inconsistent naming for synchronous retrieval operations. CloudAtomClient, CloudQueueClient, and CloudDictionaryClient all use 'GetById' for the synchronous version. However, CloudValueClient uses 'Read' for synchronous retrieval (Read(cloudValue)) and 'ReadAsync' for asynchronous. This breaks the Get/GetById pattern established by the other clients.

Inconsistent naming for creation operations. CloudAtomClient and CloudQueueClient use 'Create' for the synchronous version. CloudDictionaryClient uses 'New' for the synchronous version. This creates confusion about whether 'New' and 'Create' are semantically different or just naming inconsistencies.

CloudValueClient uses 'New' for creation, while other clients (CloudAtomClient, CloudQueueClient) use 'Create'. Additionally, CloudValueClient has specific 'NewArray' methods, whereas CloudAtomClient uses a single 'Create' method that likely handles arrays internally or via overloads. This inconsistency in verb choice ('New' vs 'Create') and method structure (specific array methods vs generic create) is confusing.

CloudAtomClient has a Delete method, but CloudQueueClient and CloudDictionaryClient do not expose a Delete method in the provided signatures (only Create/GetById). If deletion is supported for queues and dictionaries, the absence of Delete methods is an inconsistency. If deletion is not supported, it should be documented. However, assuming all are persistent stores, the lack of Delete on Queue/Dictionary clients is an inconsistency in capability exposure.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for synchronous retrieval operations.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for creation operations. CloudAtomClient and… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CloudValueClient uses 'New' for creation, while other clients… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment ValueWeak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 valuable / 1 redundant across 5 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentsrc/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:1294

What to do

Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Cloud.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 of 2 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

85 % of calls cross a namespace and 8 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

100 of 100 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs. Counted over 100 of the 118 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×97src/MBrace.CSharp/CloudFlow.cs:1

Most significant orphaned file · ×3src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:1

Dormant codebase

What to do

Resolve the 97 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Utils.fs (4), Combinators.fs (2), CloudProcess.fs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (97 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Cloud.cs, Combinators.fs, StoreClient.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 11 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.0 · ×2src/MBrace.Thespian/MBrace.Thespian.fsproj:4

What to do

Resolve the 2 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with MBrace.Thespian.fsproj, MBrace.CSharp.Tests.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 2 of 2 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy8.0 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:78

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

What to do

Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step for your stack, and gate merges on it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No explicit version was found by any of the six routes this check reads: a `<Version>` or `<VersionPrefix>` property; a `GitVersion` or `MinVer` reference; the split Arcade spelling (`<MajorVersion>` AND `<MinorVersion>` together); a hand-written `[assembly: AssemblyVersion]` in source, with `bin/` and `obj/` excluded so the SDK's generated AssemblyInfo cannot satisfy it; or a version handed to MSBuild by the pipeline, as `-p:Version=` / `-p:PackageVersion=` on a `dotnet build` or `dotnet pack` line. Only project files, first-party source and CI files are read, so a version computed somewhere none of those can see is invisible here. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.

What to do

Make types internal by default and expose only the deliberate public API — even for a small library, every public type is a stability contract.
Stamp a semantic version (csproj <Version> or GitVersion/MinVer) and follow semver for breaking changes.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 628 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this code sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it creates — a bonus, not a requirement.

What to do

On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut the allocations those paths would otherwise make.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	95%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Architecture	92%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	47%	Weak — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	37%	Weak — gated by D12, P3, P10	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	73%	Adequate — gated by D44	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	70%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.

Not evidenced — 2 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 54 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
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
D14 License Compliance — Package licences not resolved for an MSBuild/NuGet repository
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — single shared-core project — no cross-context coupling to assess
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
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 — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 12 value object(s); 9 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens 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 lens looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no async method does work a token could cancel
X4 Structured logging — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's C# was read, and every log call in it goes through a logger that takes one finished message — its own wrapper, log4net, Console or Debug — so an interpolated message there loses nothing the API could have kept. Calls through Microsoft.Extensions.Logging, Serilog, NLog or ZLogger, or any logger with a message-template overload, would be judged.
X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 2 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×2

Vulnerable: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3 — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
Vulnerable: System.Drawing.Common — System.Drawing.Common 4.7.0 — Critical severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

Serious — 82 finding(s)

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Core/Utils/AsyncExtensions.fs:41 — src/MBrace.Core/Utils/AsyncExtensions.fs:41-45 | src/MBrace.Core/Utils/Utils.fs:229-233 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:53 — src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:53-57 | src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:76-81 — 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 (5 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Thespian/Primitives/CloudAtom.fs:87 — src/MBrace.Thespian/Primitives/CloudAtom.fs:87-91 | src/MBrace.Thespian/Primitives/CloudDictionary.fs:107-111 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Thespian/Primitives/CloudAtom.fs:87` 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 (5 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:88 — src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:88-92 | src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:211-215 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Flow/Utils.fs:76 — src/MBrace.Flow/Utils.fs:76-80 | src/MBrace.Runtime/Utils/Utils.fs:192-196 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Continuation.fs:239 — src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Continuation.fs:239-246 | src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Continuation.fs:258-265 — 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) src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs:633 — src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs:633-640 | src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs:658-665 — 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) src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/NonDeterminstic.fs:30 — src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/NonDeterminstic.fs:30-37 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/NonDeterminstic.fs:49-56 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/NonDeterminstic.fs:30` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/PerformanceMonitor.fs:281 — src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/PerformanceMonitor.fs:281-288 | src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/PerformanceMonitor.fs:300-307 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:105 — src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:105-111 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:210-216 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:105` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:190 — src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:190-196 | src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:169-175 — 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 (7 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:96 — src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:96-102 | src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:177-183 — 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) src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:25 — src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:25-31 | src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedValue.fs:22-28 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×3

Deprecated: Microsoft.DotNet.InternalAbstractions — Microsoft.DotNet.InternalAbstractions 1.0.0 — Other,Legacy
Deprecated: NuGet.Frameworks — NuGet.Frameworks 5.4.0 — Legacy
Deprecated: System.Collections.Immutable — System.Collections.Immutable 1.7.0 — Legacy

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×3

TooManyMethods: CloudFileClient src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:496 — TooManyMethods — 43 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 13 over it, 1.43× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: CloudFlowExtensions src/MBrace.Flow/FluentExtensions.fs:9 — TooManyMethods — 37 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 7 over it, 1.23× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FileSystemStore src/MBrace.Runtime/Store/FileSystemStore.fs:16 — TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFunctions · ×2

TooManyFunctions: CloudFlowModule src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs:269 — TooManyFunctions — 45 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 15 over it, 1.50× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: BuilderImpl src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:13 — TooManyFunctions — 31 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:953 — src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:953-968 | src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:1038-1053 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:953` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Distinct.fs:1 — src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Distinct.fs:1-16 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Sort.fs:1-16 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:776 — src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:776-790 | src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:865-879 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:776` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:286 — src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:286-300 | src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:336-350 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:127 — src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:127-136 | src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:195-204 — 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) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:75 — src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:75-84 | src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:198-207 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Core/Store/CloudFileStore.fs:554 — src/MBrace.Core/Store/CloudFileStore.fs:554-559 | src/MBrace.Core/Store/CloudFileStore.fs:599-604 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs:565 — src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs:565-570 | src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs:595-600 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs:565` 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.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life runtime · ×2

End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.0 src/MBrace.Thespian/MBrace.Thespian.fsproj:4 — src/MBrace.Thespian/MBrace.Thespian.fsproj declares .NET netcoreapp3.0 as this project's target framework, and .NET Core 3.0, support ended 2020-03-03. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2020-03-03 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.
End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.1 tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests.csproj:4 — tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests.csproj declares .NET netcoreapp3.1 as this project's target framework, and .NET Core 3.1 LTS, support ended 2022-12-13. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2022-12-13 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CloudCollection.PartitionBySize (cyclomatic 25) · ×1

CloudCollection.PartitionBySize (cyclomatic 25) src/MBrace.Core/Library/CloudCollectionUtils.fs:223 — CloudCollection.PartitionBySize has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WorkerManager.Create (cyclomatic 25) · ×1

WorkerManager.Create (cyclomatic 25) src/MBrace.Thespian/Runtime/WorkerManager.fs:161 — WorkerManager.Create has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WorkerConfiguration.ToCommandLineArgs (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

WorkerConfiguration.ToCommandLineArgs (cyclomatic 23) src/MBrace.Thespian/Worker/Configuration.fs:99 — WorkerConfiguration.ToCommandLineArgs has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · PrettyPrintImpl.prettyPrint (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

PrettyPrintImpl.prettyPrint (cyclomatic 22) src/MBrace.Runtime/Utils/TypePrinter.fs:75 — PrettyPrintImpl.prettyPrint has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ThreadPoolRuntime.Create (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

ThreadPoolRuntime.Create (cyclomatic 22) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolClient.fs:156 — ThreadPoolRuntime.Create has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Combinators.Parallel (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

Combinators.Parallel (cyclomatic 22) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:69 — Combinators.Parallel has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Combinators.runParallel (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

Combinators.runParallel (cyclomatic 21) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:45 — Combinators.runParallel 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Record.PrettyPrint (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

Record.PrettyPrint (cyclomatic 21) src/MBrace.Runtime/Utils/RecordPrinter.fs:41 — Record.PrettyPrint has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WorkerController.initController (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

WorkerController.initController (cyclomatic 21) src/MBrace.Thespian/Worker/Controller.fs:63 — WorkerController.initController has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CloudCollection.ToCloudFlow (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

CloudCollection.ToCloudFlow (cyclomatic 17) src/MBrace.Flow/Producers/CloudCollection.fs:24 — CloudCollection.ToCloudFlow has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · StreamLineReader.ReadLine (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

StreamLineReader.ReadLine (cyclomatic 16) src/MBrace.Core/Utils/TextReaders.fs:21 — StreamLineReader.ReadLine has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Combinators.runChoice (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

Combinators.runChoice (cyclomatic 16) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:178 — Combinators.runChoice has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Combinators.Choice (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

Combinators.Choice (cyclomatic 16) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:159 — Combinators.Choice has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · StreamLineReader.ReadLine (cognitive 57) · ×1

StreamLineReader.ReadLine (cognitive 57) src/MBrace.Core/Utils/TextReaders.fs:21 — StreamLineReader.ReadLine has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (49 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 38). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CloudCollection.PartitionBySize (cognitive 38) · ×1

CloudCollection.PartitionBySize (cognitive 38) src/MBrace.Core/Library/CloudCollectionUtils.fs:223 — CloudCollection.PartitionBySize has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (24 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Combinators.runParallel (cognitive 38) · ×1

Combinators.runParallel (cognitive 38) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:45 — Combinators.runParallel has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (24 pts), match/switch 5 (11 pts), error handling 2 (3 pts) (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Combinators.Parallel (cognitive 35) · ×1

Combinators.Parallel (cognitive 35) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:69 — Combinators.Parallel has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (19 pts), match/switch 5 (11 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CloudCollection.ToCloudFlow (cognitive 32) · ×1

CloudCollection.ToCloudFlow (cognitive 32) src/MBrace.Flow/Producers/CloudCollection.fs:24 — CloudCollection.ToCloudFlow has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (18 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), match/switch 5 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 14). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Combinators.runChoice (cognitive 30) · ×1

Combinators.runChoice (cognitive 30) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:178 — Combinators.runChoice has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), error handling 2 (3 pts) (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Array.splitWeightedRange (cognitive 28) · ×1

Array.splitWeightedRange (cognitive 28) src/MBrace.Core/Utils/Utils.fs:112 — Array.splitWeightedRange has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (21 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Combinators.Choice (cognitive 27) · ×1

Combinators.Choice (cognitive 27) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:159 — Combinators.Choice has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (18 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), error handling 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LargeObjectSifter.MBrace.FsPickler.IObjectSifter.Sift (cognitive 26) · ×1

LargeObjectSifter.MBrace.FsPickler.IObjectSifter.Sift (cognitive 26) src/MBrace.Runtime/Components/ClosureSiftManager.fs:89 — LargeObjectSifter.MBrace.FsPickler.IObjectSifter.Sift has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), loops 1 (5 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 14). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Record.PrettyPrint (cognitive 26) · ×1

Record.PrettyPrint (cognitive 26) src/MBrace.Runtime/Utils/RecordPrinter.fs:41 — Record.PrettyPrint has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), loops 5 (9 pts), match/switch 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WorkingDirectory.CreateWorkingDirectory (cognitive 21) · ×1

WorkingDirectory.CreateWorkingDirectory (cognitive 21) src/MBrace.Runtime/Utils/Utils.fs:242 — WorkingDirectory.CreateWorkingDirectory has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), match/switch 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PrettyPrintImpl.prettyPrint (cognitive 20) · ×1

PrettyPrintImpl.prettyPrint (cognitive 20) src/MBrace.Runtime/Utils/TypePrinter.fs:75 — PrettyPrintImpl.prettyPrint has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (9 pts), if/else 4 (8 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 10). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BuilderImpl.tryFinally (cognitive 19) · ×1

BuilderImpl.tryFinally (cognitive 19) src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:222 — BuilderImpl.tryFinally has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (19 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WorkerController.initController (cognitive 18) · ×1

WorkerController.initController (cognitive 18) src/MBrace.Thespian/Worker/Controller.fs:63 — WorkerController.initController has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (15 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WorkerManager.Create (cognitive 18) · ×1

WorkerManager.Create (cognitive 18) src/MBrace.Thespian/Runtime/WorkerManager.fs:161 — WorkerManager.Create has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 9 (18 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent naming for synchronous retrieval operations. CloudAtomClient, CloudQueueClient, and CloudDictionaryClient all use 'GetById' for the synchronous version. However, CloudValueClient uses 'Read' for synchronous retrieval (Read(cloudValue)) and 'ReadAsync' for asynchronous. This breaks the Get/GetById pattern established by the other clients. · ×1

Inconsistent naming for synchronous retrieval operations. CloudAtomClient, CloudQueueClient, and CloudDictionaryClient all use 'GetById' for the synchronous version. However, CloudValueClient uses 'Read' for synchronous retrieval (Read(cloudValue)) and 'ReadAsync' for asynchronous. This breaks the Get/GetById pattern established by the other clients. — Rename CloudValueClient.Read to CloudValueClient.GetById (or Get) to align with the other client types, or rename all others to Read/ReadAsync. Given 'GetById' is more specific to the ID-based lookup pattern used in the other clients, renaming CloudValueClient.Read to GetById is recommended. (signatures: CloudAtomClient.GetById(atomId: String, container: FSharpOption`1<String>) | CloudAtomClient.GetByIdAsync(atomId: String, container: FSharpOption`1<String>) | CloudQueueClient.GetById(queueId: String) | CloudQueueClient.GetByIdAsync(queueId: String) | CloudDictionaryClient.GetById(dictionaryId: String) | CloudDictionaryClient.GetByIdAsync(dictionaryId: String))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent naming for creation operations. CloudAtomClient and CloudQueueClient use 'Create' for the synchronous version. CloudDictionaryClient uses 'New' for the synchronous version. This creates confusion about whether 'New' and 'Create' are semantically different or just naming inconsistencies. · ×1

Inconsistent naming for creation operations. CloudAtomClient and CloudQueueClient use 'Create' for the synchronous version. CloudDictionaryClient uses 'New' for the synchronous version. This creates confusion about whether 'New' and 'Create' are semantically different or just naming inconsistencies. — Unify the naming convention for creation operations. Since 'Create' is used by two out of three clients, rename CloudDictionaryClient.New to CloudDictionaryClient.Create. (signatures: CloudAtomClient.Create(initial, atomId: FSharpOption`1<String>, container: FSharpOption`1<String>) | CloudAtomClient.CreateAsync(initial, atomId: FSharpOption`1<String>, container: FSharpOption`1<String>) | CloudQueueClient.Create(queueId: FSharpOption`1<String>) | CloudQueueClient.CreateAsync(queueId: FSharpOption`1<String>) | CloudDictionaryClient.New(dictionaryId: FSharpOption`1<String>) | CloudDictionaryClient.NewAsync(dictionaryId: FSharpOption`1<String>))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · CloudValueClient uses 'New' for creation, while other clients (CloudAtomClient, CloudQueueClient) use 'Create'. Additionally, CloudValueClient has specific 'NewArray' methods, whereas CloudAtomClient uses a single 'Create' method that likely handles arrays internally or via overloads. This inconsistency in verb choice ('New' vs 'Create') and method structure (specific array methods vs generic create) is confusing. · ×1

CloudValueClient uses 'New' for creation, while other clients (CloudAtomClient, CloudQueueClient) use 'Create'. Additionally, CloudValueClient has specific 'NewArray' methods, whereas CloudAtomClient uses a single 'Create' method that likely handles arrays internally or via overloads. This inconsistency in verb choice ('New' vs 'Create') and method structure (specific array methods vs generic create) is confusing. — Rename CloudValueClient.New/NewArray to Create/CreateArray to match the 'Create' verb used by CloudAtomClient and CloudQueueClient. Consider if CreateArray is necessary or if a single Create method with array handling is preferred for consistency with CloudAtomClient. (signatures: CloudValueClient.New(value, storageLevel: FSharpOption`1<StorageLevel>) | CloudValueClient.NewArray(values, storageLevel: FSharpOption`1<StorageLevel>) | CloudValueClient.NewAsync(value, storageLevel: FSharpOption`1<StorageLevel>) | CloudValueClient.NewArrayAsync(values, storageLevel: FSharpOption`1<StorageLevel>))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · CloudAtomClient has a Delete method, but CloudQueueClient and CloudDictionaryClient do not expose a Delete method in the provided signatures (only Create/GetById). If deletion is supported for queues and dictionaries, the absence of Delete methods is an inconsistency. If deletion is not supported, it should be documented. However, assuming all are persistent stores, the lack of Delete on Queue/Dictionary clients is an inconsistency in capability exposure. · ×1

CloudAtomClient has a Delete method, but CloudQueueClient and CloudDictionaryClient do not expose a Delete method in the provided signatures (only Create/GetById). If deletion is supported for queues and dictionaries, the absence of Delete methods is an inconsistency. If deletion is not supported, it should be documented. However, assuming all are persistent stores, the lack of Delete on Queue/Dictionary clients is an inconsistency in capability exposure. — Add Delete/DeleteAsync methods to CloudQueueClient and CloudDictionaryClient if they support deletion, or explicitly document that they do not. If they do support deletion, align the naming with CloudAtomClient.Delete. (signatures: CloudAtomClient.Delete(atom): Unit | CloudAtomClient.DeleteAsync(atom): FSharpAsync`1<Unit> | CloudQueueClient.Create(queueId: FSharpOption`1<String>) | CloudQueueClient.CreateAsync(queueId: FSharpOption`1<String>) | CloudDictionaryClient.New(dictionaryId: FSharpOption`1<String>) | CloudDictionaryClient.NewAsync(dictionaryId: FSharpOption`1<String>))

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

Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:116 — src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:116-146 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:226-256 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:116` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5–24 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5–24 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:75 — src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:75-79 | src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:82-105 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:82` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:82 — src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:82-104 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:187-209 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:82` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

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

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:110 — src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:110-129 | src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:138-157 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:110` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:121 — src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:121-135 | src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:149-163 | src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:177-191 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:121` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:148 — src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:148-162 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:258-271 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:148` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Distinct.fs:89 — src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Distinct.fs:89-100 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:142-153 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:252-263 — there are 3 copies across 2 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 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Distinct.fs:89` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:254 — src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:254-265 | src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:325-336 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:63 — src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:63-73 | src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:86-95 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 5) src/MBrace.CSharp/CloudFlow.cs:343 — src/MBrace.CSharp/CloudFlow.cs:343-347 | src/MBrace.CSharp/CloudFlow.cs:359-363 | src/MBrace.CSharp/CloudFlow.cs:375-379 | src/MBrace.CSharp/CloudFlow.cs:391-395 | src/MBrace.CSharp/CloudFlow.cs:407-411 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.CSharp/CloudFlow.cs:343` 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 first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `flow` to `this CloudFlow<int>` in one and `this CloudFlow<long>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Distinct.fs:43 — src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Distinct.fs:43-51 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:93-101 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:198-206 — there are 3 copies across 2 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 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Distinct.fs:43` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 3) src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:24 — src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:24-32 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:90-97 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:115-123 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:24` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:141 — src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:141-149 | src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:208-216 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:126 — src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:126-133 | src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:194-201 | src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:285-292 | src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:335-342 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:136` calls `Create`, `CloudValueClient`, `Resolve` and `src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:294` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:253 — src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:253-260 | src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:324-331 | src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedValue.fs:145-152 — there are 3 copies across 2 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 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:253` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/WorkItemEvaluator.fs:69 — src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/WorkItemEvaluator.fs:69-76 | src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/WorkItemEvaluator.fs:93-99 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 4) src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:27 — src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:27-33 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:72-77 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:93-99 | src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:118-124 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Transformers.fs:27` 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. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5–6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5–6 lines × 2) src/MBrace.Core/Library/CloudCollectionUtils.fs:138 — src/MBrace.Core/Library/CloudCollectionUtils.fs:138-142 | src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:143-148 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:143` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. 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.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.

Minor — 148 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×97

Orphaned file src/MBrace.CSharp/CloudFlow.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Core/Store/CloudFileStore.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Components/StoreCloudValue.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Core/Library/CloudWorkflows.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Core/Distribution/Combinators.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Flow/FluentExtensions.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Utils/Utils.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Components/StoreJsonLogger.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/Combinators.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Builders.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Thespian/Client.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolStore.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Core/Continuation/Continuation.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Core/Library/CloudCollectionUtils.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Core/Library/PersistedSequence.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/MBraceClient.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Core/Utils/Utils.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/CloudProcess.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Components/StoreAssemblyManager.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/ThreadPool/ThreadPoolCombinators.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/PerformanceMonitor.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/SystemLogs.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Runtime/Runtime/WorkItemEvaluator.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Flow/Consumers/Fold.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/MBrace.Thespian/Runtime/WorkItemQueue.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
+ 72 more in this group — see findings.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×19

Outdated: FSharp.Core — FSharp.Core 4.3.4 → 10.1.402 available (referenced by MBrace.Core).
Outdated: Microsoft.Build.Tasks.Git — Microsoft.Build.Tasks.Git 1.0.0 → 10.0.402 available (referenced by MBrace.Core).
Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.Common — Microsoft.SourceLink.Common 1.0.0 → 10.0.402 available (referenced by MBrace.Core).
Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub — Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub 1.0.0 → 10.0.402 available (referenced by MBrace.Core).
Outdated: Microsoft.NETCore.Platforms — Microsoft.NETCore.Platforms 3.1.0 → 7.0.4 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: Microsoft.Win32.SystemEvents — Microsoft.Win32.SystemEvents 4.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.CodeDom — System.CodeDom 4.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager — System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager 4.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.Diagnostics.PerformanceCounter — System.Diagnostics.PerformanceCounter 4.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.Drawing.Common — System.Drawing.Common 4.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.Management — System.Management 4.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.Runtime.Caching — System.Runtime.Caching 4.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.Security.Cryptography.ProtectedData — System.Security.Cryptography.ProtectedData 4.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.Security.Permissions — System.Security.Permissions 4.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.Windows.Extensions — System.Windows.Extensions 4.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: NUnit3TestAdapter — NUnit3TestAdapter 3.16.1 → 6.3.1 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: FSharp.Compiler.Service — FSharp.Compiler.Service 34.0.1 → 43.12.402 available (referenced by MBrace.Thespian.Tests).
Outdated: System.Collections.Immutable — System.Collections.Immutable 1.7.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Thespian.Tests).
Outdated: System.Reflection.Metadata — System.Reflection.Metadata 1.8.0 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by MBrace.Thespian.Tests).

D10 · Test Quality · No direct assertions · ×17

No direct assertions: OfArray_ToArray tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:32 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: Select tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:43 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: Where tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:54 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: SelectMany tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:66 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: Count tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:77 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: Sum tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:88 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: Average tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:99 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: Take tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:111 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: OrderBy tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:124 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: OrderByDescending tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:137 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: Distinct tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:150 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: CountBy tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:161 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: GroupBy tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:172 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: Aggregate tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:189 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: AggregateBy tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:200 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: Cache tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudFlowTests.cs:217 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.
No direct assertions: Simple_Parallel_Workflow tests/MBrace.CSharp.Tests/CloudTests.cs:117 — No conventional assertion call was detected, and 17 of 29 tests in `MBrace.CSharp.Tests` read the same way — so this is treated as that project's convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing.

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

Most significant orphaned file src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file src/MBrace.Flow/Combinators.fs:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Most significant orphaned file src/MBrace.Core/Library/StoreClient.fs:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1

redundant comment src/MBrace.CSharp/Cloud.cs:1294 — "interim solution for serialization errors" — delete - the ToArray() call is obvious; this is a repeated restatement of the same problem

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 2 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `MBrace.CSharp` (2114 LoC, 360 public types across 88 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — split a project that spans unrelated responsibilities.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 100 of 100 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 100 separate risks. Counted over 100 of the 118 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

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

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

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×1

README/code drift README.md:78 — README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

P10 · Library API & versioning · No explicit versioning · ×1

No explicit versioning — No explicit version was found by any of the six routes this check reads: a `<Version>` or `<VersionPrefix>` property; a `GitVersion` or `MinVer` reference; the split Arcade spelling (`<MajorVersion>` AND `<MinorVersion>` together); a hand-written `[assembly: AssemblyVersion]` in source, with `bin/` and `obj/` excluded so the SDK's generated AssemblyInfo cannot satisfy it; or a version handed to MSBuild by the pipeline, as `-p:Version=` / `-p:PackageVersion=` on a `dotnet build` or `dotnet pack` line. Only project files, first-party source and CI files are read, so a version computed somewhere none of those can see is invisible here. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.

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

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 628 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

PF1 · Benchmark discipline · No performance benchmarks · ×1

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

PF2 · Allocation hygiene · No allocation-aware APIs detected · ×1

No allocation-aware APIs detected — No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this code sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it creates — a bonus, not a requirement.

Minor — 21 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×20

Outdated: Streams — Streams 0.5.0 → 0.6.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Flow).
Outdated: Microsoft.Win32.Registry — Microsoft.Win32.Registry 4.7.0 → 5.0.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: Mono.Cecil — Mono.Cecil 0.11.1 → 0.11.6 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3 → 13.0.4 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.Security.AccessControl — System.Security.AccessControl 4.7.0 → 6.0.1 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: System.Security.Principal.Windows — System.Security.Principal.Windows 4.7.0 → 5.0.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Runtime).
Outdated: Argu — Argu 6.0.0 → 6.2.5 available (referenced by MBrace.Thespian).
Outdated: FsCheck — FsCheck 2.14.0 → 3.6.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.CodeCoverage — Microsoft.CodeCoverage 16.5.0 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.Net.Test.SDK — Microsoft.Net.Test.SDK 16.4.0 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.NETCore.Targets — Microsoft.NETCore.Targets 3.1.0 → 5.0.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.TestPlatform.ObjectModel — Microsoft.TestPlatform.ObjectModel 16.5.0 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: Microsoft.TestPlatform.TestHost — Microsoft.TestPlatform.TestHost 16.5.0 → 18.11.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: NuGet.Frameworks — NuGet.Frameworks 5.4.0 → 7.9.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: NUnit — NUnit 3.12.0 → 5.0.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: System.Threading.Tasks.Extensions — System.Threading.Tasks.Extensions 4.5.3 → 4.6.3 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: System.Xml.XPath.XmlDocument — System.Xml.XPath.XmlDocument 4.3.0 → 4.7.0 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: Unquote — Unquote 5.0.0 → 7.0.1 available (referenced by MBrace.Core.Tests).
Outdated: Streams.CSharp — Streams.CSharp 0.5.0 → 0.6.0 available (referenced by MBrace.CSharp.Tests).
Outdated: System.Buffers — System.Buffers 4.5.0 → 4.6.1 available (referenced by MBrace.Thespian.Tests).

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×1

XML-doc coverage: MBrace.CSharp src/MBrace.CSharp/MBrace.CSharp.csproj — MBrace.CSharp: 100 % XML-doc coverage (174/174).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-7e6d5085d3d449a19b9e0e6bf63a95a3/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-7e6d5085d3d449a19b9e0e6bf63a95a3/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	nuget	—	nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	none (no readable dependency manifest)	—	none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).	—

Run 01a16ac1-7718-7772-b523-09073bfe27b2 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 95% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 92% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 47% · Weak · gated by D34, M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 37% · Weak · gated by D12, P3, P10 ·

At a glance — Security · 73% · Adequate · gated by D44 ·

At a glance — Performance · 70% · Adequate ·

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts