Public report — x8086NetEmu, published 3 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
216findings with an exact file:lineof 226 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
39/96dimensions across the health lenses222 LoC · 7 projects — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
morphx666/x8086NetEmu carries serious gaps (44%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Architecture (99%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Security (95%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (27%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (36%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution (Test Distribution); ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped… (Release Hygiene).
For scale: Hobby (~222 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
Encouragingly, the gaps are in documentation and release process — not in the code's correctness, structure or security, which are strong. They're low-risk to close, and doing so would lift the grade without re-engineering anything that already works.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — desktop/game, high decision density × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. 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 tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
15 modules, 4 dependencies — every dependency points down the layering, so there are no cycles. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
At a glance — Code Health · 70% · Adequate · gated by D1, D2, X1
Begin by addressing the single missing test case in the Test Distribution to ensure coverage gaps are closed. Next, implement structured logging using ILogger or Serilog across all service-like projects to improve observability and debugging capabilities. Maintain a changelog to track release history and document significant architectural decisions in a centralized location to preserve institutional knowledge. Finally, reorganize the repository structure to separate production code from tooling, ensuring a clean and maintainable project layout.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
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. 36 of 39 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 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 39 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 216 of 226 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
A clean run — every tool resolved and ran, and every applicable dimension was measured at full confidence. No scanner was unavailable, no analysis timed out or crashed, and nothing fell back to a degraded estimate.
When something does degrade — a missing scanner, a shallow clone, an LLM hiccup — it is named here explicitly and its exact cause recorded in diagnostics.md, never absorbed silently into the score.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
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.
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.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D20, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
36 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was X8086.Execute_DEBUG at 304. A further 5 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being CGAAdapter.Out at 26 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
+ 31 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 X8086.Execute_DEBUG (cyclomatic 304) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with x8086.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 X8086.DoDecode (cyclomatic 225) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Decoder.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 X8086.HandleINT13 (cyclomatic 71) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with INT13.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 53 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 X8086.Execute_DEBUG (cognitive 290) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with x8086.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 X8086.DoDecode (cognitive 221) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Decoder.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 X8086.ExecuteGroup3 (cognitive 152) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with x8086.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 8 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with x8086.vb, OpCodes.vb, VGAAdapter.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with VGAAdapter.vb, FloppyController.vb, FormEmulator.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Decoder.vb, FormDebugger.vb, Binary.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
+ 15 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 11 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with OpCodes.vb (9), Helpers.vb, x8086.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Resolve the 8 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with OpCodes.vb (3), INT13.vb (3), Decoder.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with OpCodes.vb (2), CGAWinForms.vb, RenderCtrl.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.
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.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: 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.
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
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.
The single README is a solid showcase of the project's features and build status, covering full architecture (CPU/Memory/Flags/Registers/Stack), peripherals (PIC/8259/PIT/8254/DMA/8237/PPI/8255), adapters (CGA/Speaker/Keyboard), BIOS-free support, WinForms/console samples, cross-platform Mono testing on Windows/MacOS/Linux/Raspberry Pi, floppy/hard disk image handling, a FAT12/FAT16/DOS disk explorer, drag-and-drop/file transfer between host and emulator, text copy/paste, menu access via RCtrl+Home or title bar right-click (no console menu), TrueType font support, and an integrated debugger. It also states development is stalled due to a reproducible bug that prevents correct emulation; the outline promises Compiling for non-Windows platforms, Experimental Web UI, and more sections, so those are present but not yet shown in the clipped body.
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The single README is a solid showcase of the project's features and build status, covering full architecture (CPU/Memory/Flags/Registers/Stack), peripherals (PIC/8259/PIT/8254/DMA/8237/PPI/8255), adapters (CGA/Speaker/Keyboard), BIOS-free support, WinForms/console samples, cross-platform Mono testing on Windows/MacOS/Linux/Raspberry Pi, floppy/hard disk image handling, a FAT12/FAT16/DOS disk explorer, drag-and-drop/file transfer between host and emulator, text copy/paste, menu access via RCtrl+Home or title bar right-click (no console menu), TrueType font support, and an integrated debugger. It also states development is stalled due to a reproducible bug that prevents correct emulation; the outline promises Compiling for non-Windows platforms, Experimental Web UI, and more sections, so those are present but not yet shown in the clipped body.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
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.
0 naming inconsistencies across 47 sampled symbols.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.
2 valuable / 2 redundant across 37 sampled comments; 2 shown with locations.
redundant comment · ×2RunTests2/Program.cs:32
What to do
Resolve the 2 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
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).
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.
50 of 52 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb.
Largest orphaned file · ×3x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb
Dormant codebase
What to do
Resolve the 3 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with OpCodes.vb, Decoder.vb, VGAAdapter.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
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.
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 — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). — Program.cs:83
What to do
Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 7 of 7 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
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.
Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
Tests aren't grouped in a dedicated test folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
Only 1/7 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
Group tests in the folder your build system expects (tests/, test/, spec/, or your module's test source set) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. — Program.cs:85
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Not included — 57 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
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D10 Test Quality — ~44 lines of test code exist on disk but weren't loaded from the analyzed solution (excluded from the .sln, or co-located/using a test attribute not loaded here), so test quality couldn't be assessed. Include the tests in the analyzed solution to enable this check.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read; classic .NET Framework projects are packages.config by default). No packages could be enumerated, so there was nothing to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored, because an unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
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.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
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.
EmptyCatchBlock x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/DiskImage.vb:266— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock x8086NetEmuRenderers/CGAConsole.vb:49— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock x8086NetEmuRenderers/CGAConsole.vb:147— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:195— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock x8086NetEmuWinForms/FormEmulator.vb:770— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: VideoChar.vb ↔ FormEmulator.vb x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/VideoChar.vb— `x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/VideoChar.vb` (context x8086NetEmuRenderers) and `x8086NetEmuWinForms/FormEmulator.vb` (context x8086NetEmuWinForms) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
TodoComment x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/StandardDiskFormat.vb:439— ' TODO: Throw some error message... — 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 x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FloppyController.vb:612— ' about the exact behavior. (TODO) — 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 x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Bass/BassHelpers.vb:40— ' TODO: What do we do 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 x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Memory.vb:319— ' TODO: We need to implement some checks to prevent loading code into ROM areas. — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/DirectBitmap.vb:158— ' TODO: dispose managed state (managed objects). — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/DirectBitmap.vb:163— ' TODO: free unmanaged resources (unmanaged objects) and override Finalize() below. — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/DirectBitmap.vb:164— ' TODO: set large fields to null. — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/DirectBitmap.vb:169— ' TODO: override Finalize() only if Dispose(disposing As Boolean) above has code to free unmanaged resources. — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/DirectBitmap.vb:180— ' TODO: uncomment the following line if Finalize() is overridden above. — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:356— ' TODO: vgaPage mode not implemented — 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 x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:644— ' TODO: For this to work correctly we need to implement the coloring in the subclassed ListView — 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 x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:651— ' TODO: Implement option to enable/disable this — 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 x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:702— ' ' TODO: Implement a better solution to the case when this code is executed and historyPointer is set to -1 — 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 x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/Helpers/DataObjectEx/DataObjectEx.vb:53— 'TODO: Cleanup routines after paste has been performed — 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 x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/Helpers/DataObjectEx/DataObjectEx.vb:131— ' TODO: Get the virtual file contents and place the contents in the byte array bBuffer. — 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 x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Audio/SoundBlaster.vb:85— ' FIXME: This 14 factor is due to the factor used in the PIT8254 — 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 x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Audio/SoundBlaster.vb:320— ' FIXME: Why??? — 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 x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/StandardDiskFormat.vb:118— ' FIXME: There has to be a better way to know if the image is a floppy or a hard disk — 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 x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/StandardDiskFormat.vb:392— ' FIXME: Is this correct? — 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 x8086NetEmu/Chipset/PIT8254.vb:573— ' FIXME: WHY???!!!! — 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 x8086NetEmu/Chipset/RTC.vb:54— ' FIXME: Although this works, when pausing the emulation causes the internal timers to get out of sync: — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/WebUI.vb:114— ' ' FIXME: The zoom compensation is not implemented correctly — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/WebUI.vb:190— ' ' FIXME: When using the VGA adapter and UseVRAM is true we need to send the VGA adapter's RAM instead — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:38— ' FIXME: Is there a better way to do this? — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:45— ' FIXME: Is there a better way to do this? — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:35— ' FIXME: Is there a better way to do this? — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:42— ' FIXME: Is there a better way to do this? — 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 x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:341— ' FIXME: Dummy workaround to support the cursor; Haven't found a better way yet... — 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 x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:691— ' ' FIXME: This is too slow — 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.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:264— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:264-270 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:447-453 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:299— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:299-305 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:475-481 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:338— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:338-344 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:507-513 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:376— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:376-382 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:538-544 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:411— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:411-417 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:566-572 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:474— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:474-480 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:622-628 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:530— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:530-536 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:672-678 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:581— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:581-587 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:717-723 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:948— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:948-954 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1048-1054 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:376— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:376-382 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:392-398 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1998— x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1998-2004 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:2020-2026 — 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.
FileTooLong: x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:0— FileTooLong — 1834 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Helpers/OpCodes.vb x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:0— FileTooLong — 1411 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Video/VGAAdapter.vb x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:0— FileTooLong — 1117 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Helpers/Decoder.vb x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:0— FileTooLong — 1094 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Tools/FormDebugger.vb x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:0— FileTooLong — 844 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Disk/FloppyController.vb x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FloppyController.vb:0— FileTooLong — 623 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: x8086NetEmuWinForms/FormEmulator.vb x8086NetEmuWinForms/FormEmulator.vb:0— FileTooLong — 586 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Chipset/PIT8254.vb x8086NetEmu/Chipset/PIT8254.vb:0— FileTooLong — 502 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:556— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:556-569 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:693-706 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:607— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:607-620 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:738-751 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:661— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:661-674 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:787-800 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:541— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:541-554 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:563-576 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:25— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:25-38 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:233-248 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:233` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:44— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:44-57 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:254-267 — 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) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:103— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:103-116 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:411-424 — 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) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:36— x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:36-49 | x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:33-46 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
ClassTooLong: VGAAdapter x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:0— ClassTooLong — 1116 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 12 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: FloppyControllerAdapter x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FloppyController.vb:0— ClassTooLong — 623 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 22 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: FormEmulator x8086NetEmuWinForms/FormEmulator.vb:0— ClassTooLong — 583 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 30 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: PIT8254 x8086NetEmu/Chipset/PIT8254.vb:0— ClassTooLong — 502 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 11 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: StandardDiskFormat x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/StandardDiskFormat.vb:0— ClassTooLong — 493 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 11 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: CGAAdapter x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/CGAAdapter.vb:0— ClassTooLong — 477 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 20 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:678— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:678-689 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:803-814 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:697— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:697-708 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:821-832 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:88— x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:88-99 | x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:83-94 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/Controls/RenderCtrl.vb:6— x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/Controls/RenderCtrl.vb:6-17 | x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/Controls/RenderCtrlGDI.vb:6-19 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:973— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:973-983 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1071-1081 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1877— x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1877-1887 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1900-1910 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDiskExplorer.vb:252— x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDiskExplorer.vb:252-262 | x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:849-859 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:171— x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:171-181 | x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:168-178 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/FileSystemStructs.vb:134— x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/FileSystemStructs.vb:134-143 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/FileSystemStructs.vb:327-336 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:988— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:988-997 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1085-1094 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:1008— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:1008-1017 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1103-1112 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:336— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:336-345 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:379-388 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:126— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:126-133 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:141-148 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1986— x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1986-1993 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1996-2003 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:2008— x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:2008-2015 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:2018-2025 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) x8086NetEmuConsole/MainModule.vb:60— x8086NetEmuConsole/MainModule.vb:60-67 | x8086NetEmuWinForms/FormEmulator.vb:751-758 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
TooManyMethods: X8086 x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:0— TooManyMethods — 5734 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 245 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FormDebugger x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:0— TooManyMethods — 840 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 45 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Binary x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Binary.vb:0— TooManyMethods — 209 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 38 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/FileSystemStructs.vb:123— x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/FileSystemStructs.vb:123-128 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/FileSystemStructs.vb:315-321 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/DirectBitmap.vb:96— x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/DirectBitmap.vb:96-101 | x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/DirectBitmap.vb:115-120 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:272— x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:272-277 | x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:281-286 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:690— x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:690-705 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:754-771 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:509— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:509-524 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:652-667 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:454— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:454-468 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:603-617 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:851— x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:851-865 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:882-896 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1079— x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1079-1088 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1089-1098 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1099-1108 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) x8086NetEmuRenderers/CGAConsole.vb:163— x8086NetEmuRenderers/CGAConsole.vb:163-173 | x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:269-279 | x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:311-320 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:958— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:958-966 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1057-1065 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:251— x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:251-259 | x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:262-270 — 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.
X8086.Execute_DEBUG (cyclomatic 304) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:442— X8086.Execute_DEBUG has cyclomatic complexity 304 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086.DoDecode (cyclomatic 225) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:131— X8086.DoDecode has cyclomatic complexity 225 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086.HandleINT13 (cyclomatic 71) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:4— X8086.HandleINT13 has cyclomatic complexity 71 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086.ExecuteGroup3 (cyclomatic 58) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1804— X8086.ExecuteGroup3 has cyclomatic complexity 58 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086.ExecuteGroup2 (cyclomatic 50) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1657— X8086.ExecuteGroup2 has cyclomatic complexity 50 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
VGAAdapter.Write (cyclomatic 45) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1065— VGAAdapter.Write has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Counter.NextOutputChangeTime (cyclomatic 40) x8086NetEmu/Chipset/PIT8254.vb:194— Counter.NextOutputChangeTime has cyclomatic complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086.SetDecoderAddressing (cyclomatic 37) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1217— X8086.SetDecoderAddressing has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086.SetAddressing (cyclomatic 35) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:90— X8086.SetAddressing has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SoundBlaster.ProcessCommand (cyclomatic 34) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Audio/SoundBlaster.vb:101— SoundBlaster.ProcessCommand has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandStart (cyclomatic 33) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FloppyController.vb:211— FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandStart has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DMAI8237.TryHandleRequest (cyclomatic 33) x8086NetEmu/Chipset/DMA8237.vb:209— DMAI8237.TryHandleRequest has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandExecute (cyclomatic 32) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FloppyController.vb:318— FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandExecute has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandTransferDone (cyclomatic 32) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FloppyController.vb:450— FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandTransferDone has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
VGAWinForms.RenderGraphics (cyclomatic 27) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:199— VGAWinForms.RenderGraphics has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
VGAAdapter.SetVideoMode (cyclomatic 26) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:677— VGAAdapter.SetVideoMode has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086._2F (cyclomatic 26) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:495— X8086._2F has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DMAI8237.Out (cyclomatic 26) x8086NetEmu/Chipset/DMA8237.vb:349— DMAI8237.Out has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086.BuildSZPTables (cyclomatic 25) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:373— X8086.BuildSZPTables has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
VGAWinForms.RenderText (cyclomatic 25) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:329— VGAWinForms.RenderText has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Program.AnalyzeResult (cyclomatic 24) RunTests2/Program.cs:101— Program.AnalyzeResult has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
X8086.DecodeGroup3 (cyclomatic 23) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1084— X8086.DecodeGroup3 has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Image2Ascii.ProcessImage (cyclomatic 23) x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/Image2Ascii.vb:238— Image2Ascii.ProcessImage has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
VGAAdapter.Out (cyclomatic 21) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:926— VGAAdapter.Out has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FormDebugger.EvaluateExpression (cyclomatic 21) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:410— FormDebugger.EvaluateExpression has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FormDebugger.GenCodeAhead (cyclomatic 21) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:570— FormDebugger.GenCodeAhead has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086.ExecuteGroup1 (cyclomatic 20) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1579— X8086.ExecuteGroup1 has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
StandardDiskFormat.WriteFile (cyclomatic 19) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/StandardDiskFormat.vb:333— StandardDiskFormat.WriteFile has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086.DecodeGroup1 (cyclomatic 19) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1004— X8086.DecodeGroup1 has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X8086.HandleREPMode (cyclomatic 18) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:2130— X8086.HandleREPMode has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
x8087.Execute (cyclomatic 18) x8086NetEmu/x8087.vb:58— x8087.Execute has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FormDebugger.UpdateFlagsAndRegisters (cyclomatic 18) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:477— FormDebugger.UpdateFlagsAndRegisters has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FormEmulator.ParseSettings (cyclomatic 17) x8086NetEmuWinForms/FormEmulator.vb:719— FormEmulator.ParseSettings has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
FormDebugger.RunLoop (cyclomatic 17) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:777— FormDebugger.RunLoop has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Binary.TryParse (cyclomatic 16) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Binary.vb:44— Binary.TryParse has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
DiskImage.MatchGeometryMBR (cyclomatic 16) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/DiskImage.vb:188— DiskImage.MatchGeometryMBR has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not measured · ×1
Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results — Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
BarePragmaDisable x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Audio/SpeakerAdapter.vb:105— #Disable Warning BC42353 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
HackComment x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/StandardDiskFormat.vb:140— ' Hack to support bootsector programs — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
X8086.Execute_DEBUG (cognitive 290) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:442— X8086.Execute_DEBUG has cognitive complexity 290 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.DoDecode (cognitive 221) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:131— X8086.DoDecode has cognitive complexity 221 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.ExecuteGroup3 (cognitive 152) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1804— X8086.ExecuteGroup3 has cognitive complexity 152 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
VGAAdapter.Write (cognitive 129) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1065— VGAAdapter.Write has cognitive complexity 129 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.ExecuteGroup2 (cognitive 96) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1657— X8086.ExecuteGroup2 has cognitive complexity 96 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.HandleINT13 (cognitive 87) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Hooks/INT13.vb:4— X8086.HandleINT13 has cognitive complexity 87 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Counter.NextOutputChangeTime (cognitive 51) x8086NetEmu/Chipset/PIT8254.vb:194— Counter.NextOutputChangeTime has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
VGAWinForms.RenderText (cognitive 49) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:329— VGAWinForms.RenderText has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DMAI8237.TryHandleRequest (cognitive 48) x8086NetEmu/Chipset/DMA8237.vb:209— DMAI8237.TryHandleRequest has cognitive complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.DecodeGroup3 (cognitive 46) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1084— X8086.DecodeGroup3 has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.BuildSZPTables (cognitive 46) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:373— X8086.BuildSZPTables has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandTransferDone (cognitive 44) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FloppyController.vb:450— FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandTransferDone has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FormDebugger.GenCodeAhead (cognitive 41) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:570— FormDebugger.GenCodeAhead has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FormEmulator.ParseSettings (cognitive 38) x8086NetEmuWinForms/FormEmulator.vb:719— FormEmulator.ParseSettings has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Image2Ascii.ProcessImage (cognitive 38) x8086NetEmuRenderers/Helpers/Image2Ascii.vb:238— Image2Ascii.ProcessImage has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DMAI8237.Out (cognitive 37) x8086NetEmu/Chipset/DMA8237.vb:349— DMAI8237.Out has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FormDebugger.ButtonSearch_Click (cognitive 37) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:961— FormDebugger.ButtonSearch_Click has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
StandardDiskFormat.WriteFile (cognitive 35) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/StandardDiskFormat.vb:333— StandardDiskFormat.WriteFile has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Scheduler.SkipToNextEvent (cognitive 34) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Misc/Scheduler.vb:230— Scheduler.SkipToNextEvent has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FormDebugger.EvaluateExpression (cognitive 33) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:410— FormDebugger.EvaluateExpression has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
VGAWinForms.RenderGraphics (cognitive 32) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:199— VGAWinForms.RenderGraphics has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
PIT8254.Out (cognitive 30) x8086NetEmu/Chipset/PIT8254.vb:609— PIT8254.Out has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.HandleREPMode (cognitive 28) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:2130— X8086.HandleREPMode has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ModuleMain.RunParser (cognitive 28) GenOpCodes/ModuleMain.vb:27— ModuleMain.RunParser has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Counter.UpdMode3 (cognitive 27) x8086NetEmu/Chipset/PIT8254.vb:395— Counter.UpdMode3 has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.ExecuteGroup1 (cognitive 27) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1579— X8086.ExecuteGroup1 has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.AnalyzeResult (cognitive 27) RunTests2/Program.cs:101— Program.AnalyzeResult has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
DiskImage.MatchGeometryMBR (cognitive 26) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/DiskImage.vb:188— DiskImage.MatchGeometryMBR has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FormDebugger.RunLoop (cognitive 25) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:777— FormDebugger.RunLoop has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
StandardDiskFormat.GetDirectoryEntries (cognitive 24) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/StandardDiskFormat.vb:249— StandardDiskFormat.GetDirectoryEntries has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandStart (cognitive 24) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FloppyController.vb:211— FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandStart has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandExecute (cognitive 24) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FloppyController.vb:318— FloppyControllerAdapter.CommandExecute has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Scheduler.Run (cognitive 23) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Misc/Scheduler.vb:321— Scheduler.Run has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CGAWinForms.New.ctor (cognitive 23) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:29— CGAWinForms.New.ctor has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CGAWinForms.RenderText (cognitive 23) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/CGAWinForms.vb:214— CGAWinForms.RenderText has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
VGAWinForms.New.ctor (cognitive 23) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:26— VGAWinForms.New.ctor has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FloppyControllerAdapter.Out (cognitive 22) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FloppyController.vb:713— FloppyControllerAdapter.Out has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ConsoleCrayon.Atan2 (cognitive 22) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/ConsoleCrayon.vb:200— ConsoleCrayon.Atan2 has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FormDebugger.RunShiftF8 (cognitive 21) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:712— FormDebugger.RunShiftF8 has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.DecodeGroup1 (cognitive 20) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1004— X8086.DecodeGroup1 has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Scheduler.AdvanceTime (cognitive 20) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Misc/Scheduler.vb:199— Scheduler.AdvanceTime has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CGAConsole.RenderText (cognitive 20) x8086NetEmuRenderers/CGAConsole.vb:181— CGAConsole.RenderText has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.DecodeGroup4_And_5 (cognitive 19) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1151— X8086.DecodeGroup4_And_5 has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.SetDecoderAddressing (cognitive 19) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1217— X8086.SetDecoderAddressing has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Instruction.ToString (cognitive 18) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:21— Instruction.ToString has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
PIC8259.DoOCW2 (cognitive 18) x8086NetEmu/Chipset/PIC8259.vb:211— PIC8259.DoOCW2 has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086.ExecuteGroup4_And_5 (cognitive 18) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:2065— X8086.ExecuteGroup4_And_5 has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SoundBlaster.ProcessCommand (cognitive 17) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Audio/SoundBlaster.vb:101— SoundBlaster.ProcessCommand has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Binary.TryParse (cognitive 17) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Binary.vb:44— Binary.TryParse has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
X8086._2F (cognitive 17) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:495— X8086._2F has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FormDebugger.UpdateFlagsAndRegisters (cognitive 17) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDebugger.vb:477— FormDebugger.UpdateFlagsAndRegisters has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
StandardDiskFormat.DeleteFile (cognitive 16) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/FileSystem/StandardDiskFormat.vb:444— StandardDiskFormat.DeleteFile has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DiskImage.MatchGeometry (cognitive 16) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/DiskImage.vb:128— DiskImage.MatchGeometry has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
PIC8259.GetPendingInterrupt (cognitive 16) x8086NetEmu/Chipset/PIC8259.vb:69— PIC8259.GetPendingInterrupt has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FormDiskExplorer.DisplayFileSystem (cognitive 16) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDiskExplorer.vb:67— FormDiskExplorer.DisplayFileSystem has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FormDiskExplorer.ListViewFileSystem_DragDrop (cognitive 16) x8086NetEmuWinForms/Tools/FormDiskExplorer.vb:344— FormDiskExplorer.ListViewFileSystem_DragDrop has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ModuleMain.DisplayInstructions (cognitive 16) RunTests/ModuleMain.vb:86— ModuleMain.DisplayInstructions has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
VGAWinForms.InitVideoMemory (cognitive 16) x8086NetEmuRenderers/WinForms/VGAWinForms.vb:475— VGAWinForms.InitVideoMemory has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:788— x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:788-805 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:806-823 — 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 (17 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:1302— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:1302-1321 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:1300-1316 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:728— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:728-740 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb:761-773 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:850-862 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:881-893 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1176— x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1176-1188 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1189-1201 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1202-1214 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:610— x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:610-622 | x8086NetEmu/x8086.vb:660-672 — 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 × 3) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1126— x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1126-1136 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1137-1147 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb:1148-1158 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:114— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:114-120 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:128-134 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Helpers.vb:143-149 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1240— x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1240-1245 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1258-1263 | x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb:1284-1289 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/DiskImage.vb:211— x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/DiskImage.vb:211-215 | x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Disk/DiskImage.vb:218-222 — 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.
Off the main sequence: x8086NetEmu — x8086NetEmu: abstractness 0.23, instability 0.00, distance 0.77 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 5 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Low cohesion: CGAAdapter (LCOM4 6) x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/CGAAdapter.vb:1— CGAAdapter's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. No coverage collector was found in your CI either, so there is no existing report to hand us: add a coverage collector to your test run and commit (or publish) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output anywhere in the repo, or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 9 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Largest orphaned file · ×3
Largest orphaned file x8086NetEmu/Helpers/OpCodes.vb— One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Largest orphaned file x8086NetEmu/Helpers/Decoder.vb— One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Largest orphaned file x8086NetEmu/Adapters/Video/VGAAdapter.vb— One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
redundant comment RunTests2/Program.cs:32— "We do not support these opcodes" — generated by an opcode list, restates the excluded set - weak WHY but could note why it matters
redundant comment RunTests2/Program.cs:40— "MUL, IMUL, DIV" — generated by the MUL/IMUL/DIV line - remove from comment
No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling· Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
Bounded contexts not declared — At 20k LoC across 7 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
Dormant codebase — 50 of 52 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 50 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
No tests found — No test suite could be collected — nothing here references a test framework (xUnit, NUnit or MSTest), so there were no discoverable tests to count. Tests written as plain executables or shell/PowerShell harnesses are not collectible this way and are not scored here.
D18 · Solution Shape· Build did not complete in the analyzer · ×1
Build did not complete in the analyzer — `dotnet build` reported 7 error(s) but no C# compiler diagnostic, so this is a build-environment gap rather than a code defect. The usual causes are a project that targets a platform this run cannot build (a Windows-only target framework on a Linux worker) or a build step that shells out to a tool the image does not carry. Solution Shape is scored on structure and is NOT capped. Semantic analysis is independent of this build and covers every project that loaded — but a project whose restore did not complete has no resolved references, so treat its results as absent rather than clean. Worth checking on your side too: a build that needs undeclared host tooling, or that cannot run off its own platform, is the same wall a new contributor hits.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
dotnet: not applicable — `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read; classic .NET Framework projects are packages.config by default). No packages could be enumerated, so there was nothing to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored, because an unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.
trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
0
—
Run 019fc776-41ef-75dd-a31f-fff27fd57ede · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 6 · Warnings: 202 · Recommendations: 9 · Info: 9 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 03-08-2026 @ 11:50 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.