Public report — TypeScript, published 27 Sep 2026. Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase survey Measured under the Code Assurance Index, but not filed — nothing here carries a record a reader can check independently. How a survey is verified No record

Microsoft/TypeScript

Measured 27 September 2026, 23:45 UTC

No baseline yet — first run
62% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Security 85% Adequate Readiness 73% Strong Maturity 61% Adequate Code Health 56% Adequate

Very large · 1,259,650 LoC · rebuild ~14.1 person-years · weakest lens: Code Health (56%)

Findings by grade

1 critical 545 serious 27 minor 49 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
27 September 2026, 23:45 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify, approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said here so the number is checked rather than believed.

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

34/37dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
554findings with an exact file:lineof 573 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
37/127dimensions across the health lenses1259650 LoC — wide & deep
Chapters

Executive summary

The system holds an adequate standing with a composite score of 62%, reflecting a large, valuable asset that carries manageable but real risks. With over 1.2 million lines of production code, this platform represents a significant investment, estimated at roughly €2 million and 14 person-years to rebuild. While the foundation is solid, the sheer scale means that even minor inefficiencies can compound into substantial delays and costs if left unaddressed.

The primary concern is code maintainability, which sits at 56%. This low score indicates that the logic is overly complex, making it difficult for engineers to understand, modify, or extend features without introducing defects. For the business, this translates to slower delivery speeds and higher long-term maintenance costs. The complexity is concentrated in specific functions that are difficult to test and prone to errors, creating a bottleneck for any future development work.

Conversely, the system demonstrates strength in operational readiness and security, scoring 73% and 85% respectively. This means the platform is stable, observable, and protected against common threats, providing a reliable base for business operations. The high maturity score of 61% suggests that while documentation and processes exist, they are not yet fully optimized for new team members to onboard quickly. However, the absence of data on architecture and domain modeling means we cannot fully assess how changes might ripple through the system or how well the code reflects business intent.

To maximize leverage, the immediate focus should be on simplifying complex logic. By breaking down branch-heavy functions and aiming for lower cyclomatic complexity, the team can significantly reduce the risk of defects and accelerate future development. This single action offers the highest return on effort, addressing the weakest lens while preserving the system’s inherent stability. Until architectural and domain modeling metrics are measured, this pragmatic approach to code health provides the most reliable path to sustained value.

Code Health 56% Adequate · gated by R3 Maturity 61% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 73% Strong Security 85% Adequate · gated by D36
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Code Health 56% · 50% weightMaturity 61% · 27% weightReadiness 73% · 15% weightSecurity 85% · 8% weight

Raise Code Health 56 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 62 → ~67.

Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €680,000–€3,400,000
Cost to rebuild€680,000–€3,400,000 (6.7–21.4 person-years (11,324–35,924 h), ~8–27 engineers)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.9× (at 62% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeVery large · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~14.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€2,000,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Code Health at 56% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.9× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
+5.9 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
+8.5 pts · Medium effort · Cyclomatic Complexity
3
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
+8.5 pts · Medium effort · Large Files

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Very large asset (~14.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Code Health at 56%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Very large, ~14.1 person-years rebuild (1,259,650 LoC) · weakest lens: Code Health 56%
→ Direct remediation budget at Code Health first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.

At a glance — Code Health · 56% · Adequate · gated by R3 ·

The Good
D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.8 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 10.0 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 8.7 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 9.3
The Bad
R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 5.0
The Ugly
R3 · React / TS Large Files 0.5

At a glance — Architecture · — · — ·

The Good
D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.8 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 8.3
The Bad
R11 · React / TS Import Boundaries 6.8

At a glance — Maturity · 61% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good
D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 9.6 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 9.9 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.5 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 73% · Strong ·

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.9 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 9.9 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 9.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 8.0 R5 · React / TS Dependency Freshness 10.0 R6 · React / TS Tooling 10.0
The Bad
R4 · React / TS Test Coverage 5.6 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 6.0

At a glance — Security · 85% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good
D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.8 D37 · .NET / C# Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0
The Ugly
D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components1Medium

Roadmap

First, reduce cyclomatic complexity by breaking down branch-heavy functions to improve maintainability, and split large files into smaller, focused modules based on their existing responsibilities. Next, establish clear architectural governance by documenting significant decisions in a dedicated, discoverable location and resolving the current lack of architecture decision records. Finally, enhance onboarding and clarity by adding a testing section to the root README to explain how to run the test suite.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+5.9 ptsLowADR Quality
Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.+8.5 ptsMediumCyclomatic Complexity
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.+8.5 ptsMediumLarge Files
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).+6.4 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.+5.2 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.+4.4 ptsMediumCode Duplication
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).+3.0 ptsMediumTest Coverage
Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.+3.0 ptsMediumDependency Hygiene

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 154 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 45% mixed · 55% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
tsc/internal/checker/emitresolver.go6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/transformers/declarations/transform.go6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/checker/nodebuilderimpl.go6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/checker.ts6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/checker/nodecopy.go6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/checker/checker.go6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/parser.ts6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/pseudochecker/lookup.go6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/utilities.ts6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/printer/printer.go6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/factory/parenthesizerRules.ts6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/fourslash/tests/statefindallrefs_test.go6.5MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/parser/parser.go6.5MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/ls/utilities.go6.5MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/ls/lsutil/userpreferences.go6.5MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/utilitiesPublic.ts6.5MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/testdata/tests/cases/conformance/parser/ecmascript5/parserRealSource11.ts6.5MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/ast/utilities.go6.6MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/binder.ts6.6MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tsc/internal/checker/symbolaccessibility.go6.6MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

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

Critical — 1

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 — 545

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 — 27

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

Could not be resolved — 49

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

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 34 of 37 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 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 — 37 dimensions across the health lenses
D9D10D12D13D14D16D17D19D20D21D29D30D34D35D36D37D43AX10M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6R1R10R11R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9

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
  1. 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, 554 of 573 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0e542-c869-728c-a86a-cf2d736a4548.

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.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — 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. Most of this repository's production source (.go, .js, .mjs, .mts, .ts) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity — 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. Most of this repository's production source (.go, .js, .mjs, .mts, .ts) had no cognitive complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
  • D4 Code Duplication — 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. Most of this repository's production source (.go) was not read by duplication detection: no source of those file kinds was exposed to the token comparison by any language model this pass could load. Duplication in .js, .mjs, .mts, .ts is measured by R10 Code Duplication and is not part of this gap.
  • D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a Codecov configuration (.github/codecov.yml) and a coverage step in CI (`codecov/codecov-action`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.ts, .go, .tsx, .mts), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`, or `go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`, or `go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
  • 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 866 test(s) behind this row are the ones the JavaScript/TypeScript census could read, and this repository also carries at least 4,568 test source file(s) (.go) that it cannot: it reads JavaScript/TypeScript test declarations off disk, so a 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 source is present (.ts, .go, .tsx, .mts) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D14 License Compliance — 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. This repository declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its npm package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Go dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — 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. A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (7415 changed file(s), read without line counts, across the 90-day window), but no complexity could be computed for .go, which is most of this repository's production code — so every churned file would score as complexity 0 and the hotspot list would be empty no matter how tangled the code is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. A language sidecar this run needed FAILED, so the code model the non-MSBuild public-API collector reads was never built — this is a DEGRADED run, not a settled gap, and the surface may well be collectable on a re-run: The Go sidecar EXITED with code 1 after 0s, so the Go code model degraded to null. This is the sidecar's own failure, not a budget of ours. The TypeScript/JavaScript sidecar EXITED with code 1 after 2.4s, so the TypeScript/JavaScript code model degraded to null. This is the sidecar's own failure, not a budget of ours.
  • D28 Secrets (history) — 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. `gitleaks` TIMED OUT after 462.9s against a 462.9s budget, so we killed its process tree. The budget is ours; the work may simply be larger than it allows. Nothing about this repository is asserted by the absence of a result; the budget is ours to raise, and raising it is our backlog item, not an action for this repository's owner.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts`, `packages/typescript/src/api/sync/api.ts`, `packages/typescript/src/api/sync/generatorSupport.ts`, `packages/typescript/src/ast/is.generated.ts`, `packages/vscode-typescript/src/client.ts`, … (+37 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (REDACTED, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
  • AX3 Project dependency cycles — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which project references which. That is a language-neutral question, but the project-reference graph is collected from MSBuild .csproj, Gradle and Maven builds only, and this repository commits none — so there was no graph to read, and re-running the same commit reads the same nothing. Its modules are declared as: npm/pnpm/yarn packages and workspaces (package.json, pnpm-workspace.yaml, lerna.json); Go modules (REDACTED, go.work). A reader for that graph is the collector this check is missing. That is a COLLECTOR gap in this analyzer — no change to the scan image closes it — and not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the direction each project reference points. That is a language-neutral question, but the project-reference graph is collected from MSBuild .csproj, Gradle and Maven builds only, and this repository commits none — so there was no graph to read, and re-running the same commit reads the same nothing. Its modules are declared as: npm/pnpm/yarn packages and workspaces (package.json, pnpm-workspace.yaml, lerna.json); Go modules (REDACTED, go.work). A reader for that graph is the collector this check is missing. That is a COLLECTOR gap in this analyzer — no change to the scan image closes it — and not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • AX8 Test isolation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over which projects are test projects, and what they reference. That is a language-neutral question, but the project-reference graph is collected from MSBuild .csproj, Gradle and Maven builds only, and this repository commits none — so there was no graph to read, and re-running the same commit reads the same nothing. Its modules are declared as: npm/pnpm/yarn packages and workspaces (package.json, pnpm-workspace.yaml, lerna.json); Go modules (REDACTED, go.work). A reader for that graph is the collector this check is missing. That is a COLLECTOR gap in this analyzer — no change to the scan image closes it — and not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, or a Dockerfile. None was found, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
  • C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
  • C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
  • C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
  • C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
  • ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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.
  • R10 Code Duplication — 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. 48 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 88.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
  • X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • Production source was not modelled — run is Degraded — No code model read .go, .mts, .ts, .tsx, so the complexity, duplication and architecture dimensions were scored over a minority of this repository rather than its product, and dimensions that abstained did so for want of a model rather than for want of findings. The grade is NOT representative of this repository; diagnostics.md records the exact cause. The Go sidecar EXITED with code 1 after 0s, so the Go code model degraded to null. This is the sidecar's own failure, not a budget of ours. The TypeScript/JavaScript sidecar EXITED with code 1 after 2.4s, so the TypeScript/JavaScript code model degraded to null. This is the sidecar's own failure, not a budget of ours.

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.

  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; 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

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

6571 test methods: 6571 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 866 `it`/`test` case(s) across 17 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only. The Go suite contributes 5705 test case(s) across 4534 `_test.go` file(s) declaring at least one — every `func Test…(t *testing.T)` that `go test` would collect, plus the suite methods a testify-style runner reaches; a table-driven case list counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is INFERRED from file names, paths and build constraints, not declared: 4432 of those file(s) use Go's external test package (`package x_test`), which is a visibility boundary rather than a pyramid tier and was not read as one.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.9 / 10Stronggated by 5 serious findings✓ 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 5 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 866 tests. Measured on the JavaScript/TypeScript suite only — at least 4,568 test source file(s) (.go) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

No assertions: getCurrentLanguageServerSnapshot is LSP-only · ×5packages/typescript/test/async/api.test.ts:124

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ast.test.ts (3), api.test.ts (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

2 outdated, 0 author-deprecated direct Go module(s), 0 pinning or checksum defect(s). Whether any of these modules is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — proxy.golang.org publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, not a registry one. Known CVEs in this module graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED and go.sum there.

Outdated: github.com/blacktop/go-macho · ×2

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

0 of 3 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 3 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 3 product package.json manifest(s). Its 21 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry. This repository publishes itself under Apache-2.0, which is its own choice and is not judged here. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's npm package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

18 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is tsc/internal/transformers/declarations/diagnostics.go. Counted over 423 of the 600 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×2
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 10Stronggated by 429 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

509 deducted task-comment markers across 452481 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×409packages/typescript/test/async/api.test.ts:4919
XxxComment · ×14tsc/internal/fswatch/inotify_linux.go:363
FixmeComment · ×5tsc/internal/ls/lsutil/symbol_display.go:253
TodoComment repeated across 28 filestsc/internal/checker/printer.go:174

What to do

  1. Resolve the 409 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with checker.ts (39), nodebuilderimpl.go (23), nodecopy.go (18). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (409 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 14 XxxComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with parser.go (5), parser.ts (5), checker.ts (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 5 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with callWithSpread3.ts (2), genericRestParameters1.ts (2), symbol_display.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

This repository is a collection of TypeScript-related documentation and source packages with strong README coverage: the root README describes TypeScript itself (what it is, where to find docs, how to install nightly builds), and each package's README documents that directory rather than the repository. The architecture/design docs are absent from this summary; the only visible content is per-package READMEs covering installation, usage, contribution guidance, and a roadmap for the root document plus an internal bundled/README.md about generated files, DOM/web worker APIs, formatting internals, and fswatch.

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — This repository is a collection of TypeScript-related documentation and source packages with strong README coverage: the root README describes TypeScript itself (what it is, where to find docs, how to install nightly builds), and each package's README documents that directory rather than the repository. The architecture/design docs are absent from this summary; the only visible content is per-package READMEs covering installation, usage, contribution guidance, and a roadmap for the root document plus an internal bundled/README.md about generated files, DOM/web worker APIs, formatting internals, and fswatch.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

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

  1. 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.

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Medium vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

6 of 423 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is tsc/internal/evaluator/evaluator.go. Counted over 423 of the 600 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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

Strongest change-coupling: main.go↔host.go 72%; main.go↔diagnosticwriter.go 53%

Change coupling: main.go ↔ host.go · ×2tsc/cmd/tsc/main.go

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with main.go (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
M1 · Documentation (README)7.5 / 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 a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 4 of 7 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.1 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
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.

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

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

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

P3 · Security & performance tooling9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

P6 · Release Hygiene8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.
R1 · Type Safety10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

R10 · Code Duplication8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:857 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:918 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 310 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:857
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:467 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:696 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:467
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1138 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1265 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1138
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2145 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2305 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2145
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:563 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:643 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 101 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:563
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:344 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:591 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:344
  • packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:73 · packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:97 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:73
  • packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1814 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1843 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1905 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1814
  • packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:164 · packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:181 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:164
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:370 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:1139 — 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. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:370
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1643 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1689 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1643
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:650 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:922 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:650
  • tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3379 · tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3412 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3379
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/client.ts:233 · packages/typescript/src/api/sync/client.ts:112 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 76 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/client.ts:233
  • packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1631 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1887 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1631
  • packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1838 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1861 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1838
  • packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1937 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:2416 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1937
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:561 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:678 — 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. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:561
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:898 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:911 — 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. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:898
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1019 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1185 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1019
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1047 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1199 — 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. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1047
  • packages/typescript/src/ast/astnav.ts:747 · packages/typescript/src/ast/astnav.ts:760 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — packages/typescript/src/ast/astnav.ts:747
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:932 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:957 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:932
  • tools/scripts/tsc/schema.ts:1092 · tools/scripts/tsc/schema.ts:1108 — 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. — tools/scripts/tsc/schema.ts:1092
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1812 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1828 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1844 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1860 · +1 more site(s) not listed — 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. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1812
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2365 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2463 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2760 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2365
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/client.ts:89 · packages/typescript/src/api/sync/client.ts:43 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/client.ts:89
  • packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts:116 · packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts:136 · packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts:151 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts:116
  • packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1660 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1672 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1660
  • packages/vscode-typescript/src/client.ts:393 · packages/vscode-typescript/src/client.ts:409 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — packages/vscode-typescript/src/client.ts:393
  • packages/vscode-typescript/src/session.ts:287 · packages/vscode-typescript/src/session.ts:299 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/vscode-typescript/src/session.ts:287
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:399 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:449 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:546 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:664 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:399
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:850 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:983 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:850
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:513 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:616 — 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. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:513
  • tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1206 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1247 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1206
  • tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3396 · tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3433 — 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. — tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3396
  • packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:457 · packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:540 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:457
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:794 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2025 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:794
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1715 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1776 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1885 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1907 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1715
  • packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2949 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2960 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2949

What to do

  • Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
R11 · Import Boundaries6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Conformance to the detected frontend architecture layout (feature-sliced / layered src) plus cross-package deep-import rules (D-386).

Method: Conformance to the detected frontend layout (feature-sliced / layered src) plus cross-package deep-import rules, over the module graph. Deterministic.

  • Herebyfile.mjs:648 reaches into another package with a relative path (./packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts) — import the package by name instead. — Herebyfile.mjs:648
  • packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:1 reaches into another package with a relative path (../../../tools/scripts/gen/utils.mts) — import the package by name instead. — packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:1
  • packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:2 reaches into another package with a relative path (../../../tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts) — import the package by name instead. — packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:2
  • packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:3 reaches into another package with a relative path (../../../tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts) — import the package by name instead. — packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:3
  • packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:30 reaches into another package with a relative path (../../../tools/scripts/gen/generatedFile.mts) — import the package by name instead. — packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:30
  • packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:31 reaches into another package with a relative path (../../../tools/scripts/gen/utils.mts) — import the package by name instead. — packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:31

What to do

  • Fix the listed violations: import through public entries (package exports / slice index), never reach into another layer or package's internals.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • scan has cyclomatic complexity 164 and cognitive complexity 278; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1531
  • generateCode has cyclomatic complexity 129 and cognitive complexity 371; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:2180
  • generateFactory has cyclomatic complexity 110 and cognitive complexity 236; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:556
  • patchAndPreprocessModel has cyclomatic complexity 57 and cognitive complexity 94; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:1046
  • scanEscapeSequence has cyclomatic complexity 55 and cognitive complexity 51; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1261
  • isExpressionNode has cyclomatic complexity 55 and cognitive complexity 9; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/typescript/src/ast/is.ts:241
  • generateIsGenerated has cyclomatic complexity 41 and cognitive complexity 75; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1319
  • isInExpressionContext has cyclomatic complexity 39 and cognitive complexity 8; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/typescript/src/ast/is.ts:322
  • generateTSNodeGenerated has cyclomatic complexity 37 and cognitive complexity 71; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:1286
  • reScanSlashToken has cyclomatic complexity 37 and cognitive complexity 66; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:2068
  • constructor has cyclomatic complexity 36 and cognitive complexity 40; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:3208
  • scanJsDocToken has cyclomatic complexity 36 and cognitive complexity 21; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:2358
  • validate has cyclomatic complexity 34 and cognitive complexity 63; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — tools/scripts/tsc/schema.ts:1090
  • iterateCommentRanges has cyclomatic complexity 33 and cognitive complexity 78; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:617
  • skipTrivia has cyclomatic complexity 32 and cognitive complexity 52; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:454
  • resolveType has cyclomatic complexity 32 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:1554
  • generateAstGenerated has cyclomatic complexity 30 and cognitive complexity 56; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:298

What to do

  • Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
R3 · Large Files0.5 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 18 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts (3344), Herebyfile.mjs (2546), packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts (2328), tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts (1907), tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts (1686), tools/scripts/tsc/schema.ts (1078) (+12 more).

What to do

  • Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
R4 · Test Coverage5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×35) — packages/vscode-typescript/src/client.ts, packages/vscode-typescript/src/session.ts, packages/typescript/src/api/syncChannel.ts, …

What to do

  • Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R5 · Dependency Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

R7 · Dead Code9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Unreachable from the 147 application, 118 tooling and 27 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run build` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
  • no import path from any entry point (147 application, 118 tooling, 27 test roots considered), but 1 in-repo import(s) from 1 other file(s) do name it (packages/typescript/src/api/sync/client.ts) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it — packages/typescript/src/api/syncChannel.ts
  • no import path from any entry point (147 application, 118 tooling, 27 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make (×3) — packages/typescript/src/api/sync/client.ts, tools/scripts/post-vsts-artifact-comment.mjs, packages/vscode-typescript/src/managedFileContext.ts
  • Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×10) — packages/typescript/src/api/node/encoder.ts:378, packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.infrastructure.ts:30, packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.infrastructure.ts:35, …
  • Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists. — packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.infrastructure.ts:113
  • Nothing imports THIS copy of 'NODE_EXTENDED_DATA_MASK' — but packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.infrastructure.ts:36 in the same directory exports that same name, and it is the copy every import site resolves to. Grepping the name therefore finds live callers that do not reach this binding: it is the dead half of a duplicated pair, left behind when the API moved. Delete it here and keep packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.infrastructure.ts's, or, if this one is meant to be the survivor, repoint the importers before removing the other. — packages/typescript/src/api/node/protocol.ts:36

What to do

  • Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Imported only as a TYPE and declared in no reachable package.json. The import is erased at compile time, so nothing is installed and no runtime resolution depends on it — but type-checking a clean clone will fail. Declare the typings it resolves through (or the package itself) in the owning package.json. — packages/vscode-typescript/src/configurationMiddleware.ts:4
  • Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×3)

What to do

  • Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
R9 · Circular Imports8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • packages/typescript/src/ast/is.ts → packages/typescript/src/ast/utils.ts → packages/typescript/src/ast/is.ts — packages/typescript/src/ast/is.ts

What to do

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

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.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health56%Adequate — gated by R3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity61%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness73%StrongStrongest area.
Security85%Adequate — gated by D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 84 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
  • AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository commits no project file of a kind this check models. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository commits no project file of a kind this check models. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository commits no project file of a kind this check models. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — cyclomatic complexity not measured — .go, .js, .mjs, .mts, .ts exposed no member bodies
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — no .ts test runner
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .go — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity — cognitive complexity not measured — .go, .js, .mjs, .mts, .ts exposed no member bodies
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.go, .mts, .ts, .tsx) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D28 Secrets (history) — gitleaks killed before it finished — this repository's git history not scanned
  • D3 God Classes — Most of this repository's production source (.go, .js, .mjs, .mts, .ts) was not read by god-class detection, so class size was not assessed for the languages that are the product — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's class size. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • 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) — 42 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
  • D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D4 Code Duplication — Duplication not measured — .go not exposed to the token comparison
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
  • D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART class graph, and this repository's production source is .mts, .ts, .tsx, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
  • P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository

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 — 1 finding(s)
R9 · Circular Imports · Import cycle (2 files) · ×1
  • Import cycle (2 files) packages/typescript/src/ast/is.ts — packages/typescript/src/ast/is.ts → packages/typescript/src/ast/utils.ts → packages/typescript/src/ast/is.ts
Serious — 545 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×409
  • TodoComment packages/typescript/test/async/api.test.ts:4919 — // TODO: Add request filesystem coverage for `tsc -b` and `tsc -b --clean` — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment packages/vscode-typescript/src/session.ts:251 — // TODO: Support the standard reload/go-to-project-config commands while — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/api/session.go:1214 — // TODO: Implement notification handling — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/api/server.go:88 — // TODO: Add logging support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/ast/utilities.go:499 — // TODO(rbuckton): Move `node != nil` test to call sites — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/ast/utilities.go:519 — // TODO(rbuckton): Move `node != nil` test to call sites — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/ast/utilities.go:1694 — // TODO: Should we deprecate `IsExternalOrCommonJSModule` in favor of this function? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/ast/utilities.go:4317 — // TODO(rbuckton): ParameterDeclaration decorator support for ES decorators must wait until it is standardized — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/ast/precedence.go:113 — // UpdateExpression: // TODO: Do we need to investigate the precedence here? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/utilities.ts:5834 — // UpdateExpression: // TODO: Do we need to investigate the precedence here? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/ast/precedence.go:154 — // TODO: JSXElement? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/utilities.ts:5871 — // TODO: JSXElement? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/ast/precedence.go:260 — // TODO: Should prefix `++` and `--` be moved to the `Update` precedence? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/utilities.ts:5937 — // TODO: Should prefix `++` and `--` be moved to the `Update` precedence? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/binder/binder.go:393 — // TODO: Make this a more specific error and decouple it from the exclusion logic. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/binder.ts:905 — // TODO: Make this a more specific error and decouple it from the exclusion logic. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/checker/utilities.go:303 — // !!! TODO: JSDoc support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/checker/emitresolver.go:625 — // !!! TODO: JSDoc support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/transformers/declarations/util.go:166 — // !!! TODO: JSDoc support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/transformers/declarations/transform.go:1735 — // !!! TODO: JSDoc support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/checker/symbolaccessibility.go:22 — // TODO: Strada bug? Why is this allowModules: false? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/checker/symbolaccessibility.go:38 — // TODO: going through emit resolver here is weird. Relayer these APIs. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/checker/nodebuilderimpl.go:2155 — // TODO: going through emit resolver here is weird. Relayer these APIs. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/internal/checker/symbolaccessibility.go:769 — // TODO: the below is shared with similar code in `resolveName` - in fact, rephrasing all this symbol — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/checker.ts:5710 — // TODO: the below is shared with similar code in `resolveName` - in fact, rephrasing all this symbol — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • + 384 more in this group — see findings.md.
R4 · Test Coverage · No test reaches this file · ×35
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/client.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/session.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/typescript/src/api/syncChannel.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/util.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/configurationMiddleware.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/extension.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/typescript/src/api/sync/client.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/projectStatus.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/languageFeatures/onAutoInsert.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/typescript/src/enums/characterCodes.enum.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/typescript/src/enums/characterCodes.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file tools/scripts/post-vsts-artifact-comment.mjs — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/telemetryReporting.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/commands.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/languageFeatures/util/dependentRegistration.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/languageFeatures/documentHighlight.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/activeJsTsEditorTracker.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/languageFeatures/sourceDefinition.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/languageFeatures/hover.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file tools/scripts/configure-release.mjs — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/experimentationService.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/managedFileContext.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/vscode-typescript/src/workspaceSymbolMiddleware.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file packages/typescript/lib/tsc.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file tools/scripts/link-hooks.mjs — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • + 10 more in this group — see findings.md.
D17 · Explicit Debt · XxxComment · ×14
  • XxxComment tsc/internal/fswatch/inotify_linux.go:363 — // XXX: self events don't have IN_ISDIR set. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/internal/parser/parser.go:3875 — // ( xxx : — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/parser.ts:4895 — // ( xxx : — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/internal/parser/parser.go:3876 — // ( xxx , — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/parser.ts:4896 — // ( xxx , — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/internal/parser/parser.go:3877 — // ( xxx ? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/parser.ts:4897 — // ( xxx ? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/internal/parser/parser.go:3878 — // ( xxx = — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/parser.ts:4898 — // ( xxx = — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/internal/parser/parser.go:3882 — // ( xxx ) => — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/parser.ts:4904 — // ( xxx ) => — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/checker.ts:17285 — // Given a homomorphic mapped type { [K in keyof T]: XXX }, where T is constrained to an array or tuple type, in the — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/testdata/fixtures/compiler/checker.ts:17286 — // template type XXX, K has an added constraint of number | `${number}`. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • XxxComment tsc/testdata/tests/cases/compiler/genericCallInferenceUsingThisTypeNoInvalidCacheReuseAfterMappedTypeApplication1.ts:47 — // Effect<100, never, XXX> — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) · ×8
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/client.ts:89 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/client.ts:89 · packages/typescript/src/api/sync/client.ts:43 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1660 — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1660 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1672 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) packages/vscode-typescript/src/client.ts:393 — packages/vscode-typescript/src/client.ts:393 · packages/vscode-typescript/src/client.ts:409 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) packages/vscode-typescript/src/session.ts:287 — packages/vscode-typescript/src/session.ts:287 · packages/vscode-typescript/src/session.ts:299 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:850 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:850 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:983 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:513 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:513 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:616 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1206 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1206 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1247 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3396 — tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3396 · tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3433 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) · ×7
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1631 — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1631 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1887 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1838 — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1838 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1861 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1937 — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1937 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:2416 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:561 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:561 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:678 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:898 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:898 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:911 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1019 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1019 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1185 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1047 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1047 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1199 — 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.
R11 · Import Boundaries · Boundary violation [package · ×6
  • Boundary violation [package:relative-cross-package] Herebyfile.mjs:648 — Herebyfile.mjs:648 reaches into another package with a relative path (./packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts) — import the package by name instead.
  • Boundary violation [package:relative-cross-package] packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:1 — packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:1 reaches into another package with a relative path (../../../tools/scripts/gen/utils.mts) — import the package by name instead.
  • Boundary violation [package:relative-cross-package] packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:2 — packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:2 reaches into another package with a relative path (../../../tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts) — import the package by name instead.
  • Boundary violation [package:relative-cross-package] packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:3 — packages/typescript/scripts/generate.ts:3 reaches into another package with a relative path (../../../tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts) — import the package by name instead.
  • Boundary violation [package:relative-cross-package] packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:30 — packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:30 reaches into another package with a relative path (../../../tools/scripts/gen/generatedFile.mts) — import the package by name instead.
  • Boundary violation [package:relative-cross-package] packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:31 — packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:31 reaches into another package with a relative path (../../../tools/scripts/gen/utils.mts) — import the package by name instead.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×5
  • No assertions: getCurrentLanguageServerSnapshot is LSP-only packages/typescript/test/async/api.test.ts:124 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: Benchmarks packages/typescript/test/sync/ast.test.ts:97 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: structural invariants hold recursively across a rich tree packages/typescript/test/sync/ast.test.ts:1458 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: invariants: ${entry.name} packages/typescript/test/sync/ast.test.ts:1518 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: getCurrentLanguageServerSnapshot is LSP-only packages/typescript/test/sync/api.test.ts:132 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×5
  • FixmeComment tsc/internal/ls/lsutil/symbol_display.go:253 — // FIXME: getter and setter use the same symbol. And it is rare to use only setter without getter, so in most cases the symbol always has getter flag. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tsc/testdata/tests/cases/conformance/expressions/functionCalls/callWithSpread3.ts:25 — // fs2n_(...s2, ...s_); // FIXME: should be a type error — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tsc/testdata/tests/cases/conformance/expressions/functionCalls/callWithSpread3.ts:35 — // fs2n_(...s2, ...n_); // FIXME: should compile — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tsc/testdata/tests/cases/conformance/types/rest/genericRestParameters1.ts:26 — // FIXME: Error, since ...ns is considered as string|number here — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment tsc/testdata/tests/cases/conformance/types/rest/genericRestParameters1.ts:35 — // FIXME: Error, since ...ns is considered as string|number here — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1643 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1643 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1689 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:650 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:650 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:922 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3379 — tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3379 · tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:3412 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/ast/astnav.ts:747 — packages/typescript/src/ast/astnav.ts:747 · packages/typescript/src/ast/astnav.ts:760 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:932 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:932 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:957 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/schema.ts:1092 — tools/scripts/tsc/schema.ts:1092 · tools/scripts/tsc/schema.ts:1108 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:457 — packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:457 · packages/typescript/scripts/generateSync.ts:540 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:794 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:794 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2025 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2949 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2949 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2960 — 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.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2
  • Change coupling: main.go ↔ host.go tsc/cmd/tsc/main.go — `tsc/cmd/tsc/main.go` and `tsc/internal/compiler/host.go` change together 72% of the time (13 of the 18 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 13 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `04a99dee` Remove module resolution caching for now, make resolved modules avail… (at that commit the file was still `tsc/cmd/tsgo/main.go`); `413f599a` Cache ASTs in test runner (with supporting changes) (microsoft/typesc… (at that commit the file was still `tsc/cmd/tsgo/main.go`); `6892d64c` Move DefaultLibraryPath onto hosts (microsoft/typescript-go#325) (at that commit the file was still `tsc/cmd/tsgo/main.go`) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: main.go ↔ diagnosticwriter.go tsc/cmd/tsc/main.go — `tsc/cmd/tsc/main.go` and `tsc/internal/diagnosticwriter/diagnosticwriter.go` change together 53% of the time (8 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `2a1e0eac` execute command line initial implementation (microsoft/typescript-go#… (at that commit the file was still `tsc/cmd/tsgo/main.go`); `85ee288f` Separate error reporting, string baselining from compiler baselining … (at that commit the file was still `tsc/cmd/tsgo/main.go`); `be8433d1` Port more type checking (microsoft/typescript-go#133) (at that commit the files were still `tsc/cmd/tsgo/main.go` and `tsc/internal/compiler/error_reporting.go`) — run `git show` on any of them.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:164 — packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:164 · packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:181 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:370 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:370 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:1139 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2365 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2365 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2463 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2760 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts:116 — packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts:116 · packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts:136 · packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts:151 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment repeated across 28 files · ×1
  • TodoComment repeated across 28 files tsc/internal/checker/printer.go:174 — The identical TodoComment appears in 28 files (81 occurrences) — almost certainly one boilerplate line from a single migration or decision, not 81 independent debts. Fix the systemic cause once rather than file-by-file. Text: "// TODO: GH#18217". Source code is not a task system: track the cleanup where tasks live. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×1
  • REDACTED
P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Coverage collected but not gated · ×1
  • Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (37 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (37 matched lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:857 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:857 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:918 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 310 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (28 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (28 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:467 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:467 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-go-ast.ts:696 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (22 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1138 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1138 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1265 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (18 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2145 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2145 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:2305 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (17 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (17 matched lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:563 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:563 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:643 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 101 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:344 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:344 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:591 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:73 — packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:73 · packages/typescript/src/api/node/msgpack.ts:97 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 3 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 3 locations) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1814 — packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1814 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1843 · packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1905 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (13 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (13 matched lines × 2 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/client.ts:233 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/client.ts:233 · packages/typescript/src/api/sync/client.ts:112 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 76 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 5 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 5 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1812 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1812 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1828 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1844 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1860 · +1 more site(s) not listed — 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.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 8 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 8 locations) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:399 — tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:399 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:449 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:546 · tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:664 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 4 locations) packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1715 — packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1715 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1776 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1885 · packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:1907 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function scan (cyclomatic 164, cognitive 278) · ×1
  • Complex function scan (cyclomatic 164, cognitive 278) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1531 — scan has cyclomatic complexity 164 and cognitive complexity 278; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function generateCode (cyclomatic 129, cognitive 371) · ×1
  • Complex function generateCode (cyclomatic 129, cognitive 371) tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:2180 — generateCode has cyclomatic complexity 129 and cognitive complexity 371; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function generateFactory (cyclomatic 110, cognitive 236) · ×1
  • Complex function generateFactory (cyclomatic 110, cognitive 236) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:556 — generateFactory has cyclomatic complexity 110 and cognitive complexity 236; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function patchAndPreprocessModel (cyclomatic 57, cognitive 94) · ×1
  • Complex function patchAndPreprocessModel (cyclomatic 57, cognitive 94) tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:1046 — patchAndPreprocessModel has cyclomatic complexity 57 and cognitive complexity 94; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function scanEscapeSequence (cyclomatic 55, cognitive 51) · ×1
  • Complex function scanEscapeSequence (cyclomatic 55, cognitive 51) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:1261 — scanEscapeSequence has cyclomatic complexity 55 and cognitive complexity 51; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function isExpressionNode (cyclomatic 55, cognitive 9) · ×1
  • Complex function isExpressionNode (cyclomatic 55, cognitive 9) packages/typescript/src/ast/is.ts:241 — isExpressionNode has cyclomatic complexity 55 and cognitive complexity 9; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function generateIsGenerated (cyclomatic 41, cognitive 75) · ×1
  • Complex function generateIsGenerated (cyclomatic 41, cognitive 75) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:1319 — generateIsGenerated has cyclomatic complexity 41 and cognitive complexity 75; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function isInExpressionContext (cyclomatic 39, cognitive 8) · ×1
  • Complex function isInExpressionContext (cyclomatic 39, cognitive 8) packages/typescript/src/ast/is.ts:322 — isInExpressionContext has cyclomatic complexity 39 and cognitive complexity 8; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function generateTSNodeGenerated (cyclomatic 37, cognitive 71) · ×1
  • Complex function generateTSNodeGenerated (cyclomatic 37, cognitive 71) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts:1286 — generateTSNodeGenerated has cyclomatic complexity 37 and cognitive complexity 71; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function reScanSlashToken (cyclomatic 37, cognitive 66) · ×1
  • Complex function reScanSlashToken (cyclomatic 37, cognitive 66) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:2068 — reScanSlashToken has cyclomatic complexity 37 and cognitive complexity 66; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function constructor (cyclomatic 36, cognitive 40) · ×1
  • Complex function constructor (cyclomatic 36, cognitive 40) packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts:3208 — constructor has cyclomatic complexity 36 and cognitive complexity 40; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function scanJsDocToken (cyclomatic 36, cognitive 21) · ×1
  • Complex function scanJsDocToken (cyclomatic 36, cognitive 21) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:2358 — scanJsDocToken has cyclomatic complexity 36 and cognitive complexity 21; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function validate (cyclomatic 34, cognitive 63) · ×1
  • Complex function validate (cyclomatic 34, cognitive 63) tools/scripts/tsc/schema.ts:1090 — validate has cyclomatic complexity 34 and cognitive complexity 63; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function iterateCommentRanges (cyclomatic 33, cognitive 78) · ×1
  • Complex function iterateCommentRanges (cyclomatic 33, cognitive 78) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:617 — iterateCommentRanges has cyclomatic complexity 33 and cognitive complexity 78; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function skipTrivia (cyclomatic 32, cognitive 52) · ×1
  • Complex function skipTrivia (cyclomatic 32, cognitive 52) packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts:454 — skipTrivia has cyclomatic complexity 32 and cognitive complexity 52; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function resolveType (cyclomatic 32, cognitive 22) · ×1
  • Complex function resolveType (cyclomatic 32, cognitive 22) tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/_generate/generate.mts:1554 — resolveType has cyclomatic complexity 32 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function generateAstGenerated (cyclomatic 30, cognitive 56) · ×1
  • Complex function generateAstGenerated (cyclomatic 30, cognitive 56) tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts:298 — generateAstGenerated has cyclomatic complexity 30 and cognitive complexity 56; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R3 · Large Files · Large Files · ×1
  • Large Files — 18 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts (3344), Herebyfile.mjs (2546), packages/typescript/src/ast/scanner.ts (2328), tools/scripts/tsc/generate-encoder.ts (1907), tools/scripts/tsc/generate-ts-ast.ts (1686), tools/scripts/tsc/schema.ts (1078) (+12 more).
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~624 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~624 LoC) packages/typescript/src/api/syncChannel.ts — no import path from any entry point (147 application, 118 tooling, 27 test roots considered), but 1 in-repo import(s) from 1 other file(s) do name it (packages/typescript/src/api/sync/client.ts) — every one of those referrers is itself unreachable, so this file is dead only as a member of that cluster: if any referrer is in fact alive, this row falls with it
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~201 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~201 LoC) packages/typescript/src/api/sync/client.ts — no import path from any entry point (147 application, 118 tooling, 27 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~111 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~111 LoC) tools/scripts/post-vsts-artifact-comment.mjs — no import path from any entry point (147 application, 118 tooling, 27 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~56 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~56 LoC) packages/vscode-typescript/src/managedFileContext.ts — no import path from any entry point (147 application, 118 tooling, 27 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unlisted import 'vscode-languageserver-protocol' · ×1
  • Unlisted import 'vscode-languageserver-protocol' packages/vscode-typescript/src/configurationMiddleware.ts:4 — Imported only as a TYPE and declared in no reachable package.json. The import is erased at compile time, so nothing is installed and no runtime resolution depends on it — but type-checking a clean clone will fail. Declare the typings it resolves through (or the package itself) in the owning package.json.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@dprint/json' · ×1
  • Unused dependency '@dprint/json' — Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@jakebailey/dprint-plugin-gofumpt' · ×1
  • Unused dependency '@jakebailey/dprint-plugin-gofumpt' — Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@unicode/unicode-15.1.0' · ×1
  • Unused dependency '@unicode/unicode-15.1.0' — Declared in the root package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
Minor — 25 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×2
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 8 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: tsc/internal/fswatch/fsevents_darwin_ffi.go, tsc/internal/diagnostics/generate.go, tsc/internal/lsp/lsproto/structcodec.go, tsc/internal/glob/glob.go, tsc/internal/fswatch/event.go, tsc/internal/jsnum/jsnum.go, tools/cmd/machotool/main.go, tsc/internal/json/json.go. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 7 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: packages/typescript/src/ast/utils.ts, tsc/internal/ls/jsdoc.go, packages/typescript/src/api/timing.ts, packages/typescript/src/api/sourceFileCache.ts, packages/typescript/src/ast/clone.ts, tsc/internal/project/refcountcache.go, tsc/internal/testutil/contentmappertest/registry.go. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'NODE_STRING_INDEX_MASK' · ×2
  • Unused export 'NODE_STRING_INDEX_MASK' packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.infrastructure.ts:35 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
  • Unused export 'NODE_STRING_INDEX_MASK' packages/typescript/src/api/node/protocol.ts:35 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
  • Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 2 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (18 single-owned of 423 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 423 of the 600 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #3 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #4 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1
  • Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 6 of 423 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 423 of the 600 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: tsc/internal/evaluator/evaluator.go, packages/vscode-typescript/src/languageFeatures/onAutoInsert.ts, tsc/internal/execute/tsc/init.go, tsc/internal/symlinks/knownsymlinks.go, tsc/internal/project/ata/validatepackagename.go, tsc/internal/ast/tokenflags.go. Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
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.
P6 · Release Hygiene · Changelog looks stale/thin · ×1
  • Changelog looks stale/thin — The changelog this check read carries 1 versioned entry, against a bar of 3. Counted as either an `x.y.z` string or a version-shaped section heading (`## [1.2.0]`, `## V14.x.x`, `## Updates in 8.0.x`), whichever is the larger — so a log sectioned by minor series counts its sections, not its individual patch numbers. Entries recorded somewhere this check does not read — release notes generated at tag time from a generator config it did not recognise, or a log kept outside the repository — are not counted here, and this row is about what is re-findable in the tree rather than about how often you release.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'sourceFileResponseToUint8Array' · ×1
  • Unused export 'sourceFileResponseToUint8Array' packages/typescript/src/api/node/encoder.ts:378 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'popcount8' · ×1
  • Unused export 'popcount8' packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.infrastructure.ts:30 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'RemoteNodeBase' · ×1
  • Unused export 'RemoteNodeBase' packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.infrastructure.ts:113 — Nothing ultimately consumes this binding: its only referrer is the re-export in packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts, whose re-exported name has no consumer either. Removing it is therefore not a one-file change — drop the re-export line in packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.ts in the same commit, or the barrel will import a name that no longer exists.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'HEADER_OFFSET_SOURCE_FILE_ID' · ×1
  • Unused export 'HEADER_OFFSET_SOURCE_FILE_ID' packages/typescript/src/api/node/protocol.ts:14 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'HEADER_OFFSET_BINDER_DATA' · ×1
  • Unused export 'HEADER_OFFSET_BINDER_DATA' packages/typescript/src/api/node/protocol.ts:16 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'NODE_OFFSET_FLAGS' · ×1
  • Unused export 'NODE_OFFSET_FLAGS' packages/typescript/src/api/node/protocol.ts:27 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'NODE_EXTENDED_DATA_MASK' · ×1
  • Unused export 'NODE_EXTENDED_DATA_MASK' packages/typescript/src/api/node/protocol.ts:36 — Nothing imports THIS copy of 'NODE_EXTENDED_DATA_MASK' — but packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.infrastructure.ts:36 in the same directory exports that same name, and it is the copy every import site resolves to. Grepping the name therefore finds live callers that do not reach this binding: it is the dead half of a duplicated pair, left behind when the API moved. Delete it here and keep packages/typescript/src/api/node/node.infrastructure.ts's, or, if this one is meant to be the survivor, repoint the importers before removing the other.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'cacheGeneratorMethod' · ×1
  • Unused export 'cacheGeneratorMethod' packages/typescript/src/api/sync/generatorSupport.ts:7 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'all' · ×1
  • Unused export 'all' packages/typescript/src/api/sync/generatorSupport.ts:72 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'defer' · ×1
  • Unused export 'defer' packages/typescript/src/api/sync/generatorSupport.ts:346 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
X9 · Subsumed condition operand · Subsumed condition operand · ×1
  • Subsumed condition operand tsc/internal/vfs/vfsmatch/vfsmatch.go:471 — `strings.Contains(lit, ".min.js")` can never decide this `||` — every value satisfying `strings.Contains(lit, ".min.js")` also satisfies `strings.Contains(lit, ".min.")`, so the `||` chain is already decided by the latter. The expression is equivalent to the chain without it, which means it is wider than it reads. Delete the dead operand, or narrow the surviving one if IT is the accident.
Minor — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×2
  • Outdated: github.com/blacktop/go-macho — `github.com/blacktop/go-macho` is required at v1.1.283 in REDACTED, but v1.1.292 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/blacktop/go-macho@v1.1.292 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
  • Outdated: github.com/klauspost/compress — `github.com/klauspost/compress` is required at v1.20.0 in tsc/go.mod, but v1.20.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/klauspost/compress@v1.20.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-af41c42b82554f48954550b17512e381/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0—
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 .0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update1artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 42 file(s) — `packages/typescript/src/api/async/api.ts`, `packages/typescript/src/api/sync/api.ts`, `packages/typescript/src/api/sync/generatorSupport.ts`, `packages/typescript/src/ast/is.generated.ts`, `packages/vscode-typescript/src/client.ts`, … (+37 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.0—
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a0e542-c869-728c-a86a-cf2d736a4548 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 1 · Warnings: 545 · Recommendations: 25 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 27-09-2026 @ 23:45 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md