iroh — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

The system holds a strong overall standing at 72%, indicating a healthy asset with manageable risks. This score reflects a codebase that is fundamentally sound and reliable, though it carries specific operational and governance gaps that require attention to maintain its trajectory. The platform is medium-sized, comprising over 45,000 lines of production code and nearly 7,000 lines of tests, representing a significant investment. Rebuilding this logic from scratch would cost approximately €72,000 and take half a person-year, underscoring the value of preserving and refining the existing architecture rather than replacing it.

The primary risk lies in governance and documentation maturity. While the code itself is well-structured, the lack of Architectural Decision Records means critical design choices are not formally captured. This creates a hidden cost in onboarding time and increases the risk of repeating past mistakes or making uninformed changes. Without a clear record of why decisions were made, new teams may struggle to understand the system’s context, leading to slower delivery and potential rework. Additionally, the README currently advertises machine learning capabilities that do not exist, which misaligns stakeholder expectations and could lead to wasted effort or confusion during planning phases.

Conversely, the system’s architectural integrity and operational readiness are genuine strengths. The code health and architecture scores are excellent, suggesting that changes can be made with low risk of unintended side effects. The high performance and event-sourcing maturity indicate a robust, scalable foundation that supports reliable operations. These areas are not just functional but optimized, providing a stable base for future development. The low boilerplate content further confirms that the codebase is focused and efficient, avoiding the bloat that often slows down maintenance.

To maximize leverage, the immediate focus should be on establishing a formal decision record process. This single action addresses the most significant governance gap with minimal effort, providing long-term clarity and reducing future risk. Once this foundation is set, the team can address the documentation discrepancies to ensure alignment between advertised features and actual capabilities. This approach ensures that the system remains a trusted, maintainable asset while protecting the business from avoidable operational and strategic risks.

Code Health 90% Strong Architecture 92% ★ Exemplary Maturity 67% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 69% Adequate · gated by P7 Security 69% Adequate · gated by D29, D36 Event Sourcing 100% ★ Exemplary Performance 100% ★ Exemplary

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Maturity 67% · 46% weightSecurity 69% · 25% weightReadiness 69% · 14% weightCode Health 90% · 8% weightArchitecture 92% · 4% weightEvent Sourcing 100% · 2% weightPerformance 100% · 1% weight

No single dominant problem — the weakest areas are close, so progress on any of them moves the score.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (10+)

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

D3 · TooManyMethods: Connection iroh/src/endpoint/connection.rs
D5 · Off the main sequence: iroh-base
D22 · Redundant factory methods with unclear distinction. Both return a builder, but it is unclear if `n0_dns` is a specialized version of `builder` or if they produce different default configurations. In other types (e.g., PkarrPublisher), `n0_dns` is also present alongside `builder`, suggesting a pattern, but the naming is confusing for users who don't know the internal 'n0' convention.
D22 · Consistent but confusing pattern across multiple types. The presence of `n0_dns()` alongside `builder()` in both Publisher and Resolver suggests a library-specific convention ('n0') that is not self-explanatory. It creates cognitive load to determine which factory method to use.
D22 · Inconsistent naming and return types for similar operations. `from_endpoint_info` is a constructor-like static method. `set_endpoint_info` returns `EndpointData` (likely the stored data), while `add_endpoint_info` returns `Self` (unit/void). The distinction between 'set' and 'add' is not immediately obvious from the signature alone (does set overwrite? does add append?).
D22 · Standard Rust naming convention violation or confusion. `to_` usually implies borrowing/converting without consuming, while `into_` implies consuming the source. However, both return the same type `EndpointAddr`. If `to_endpoint_addr` borrows internally, it should return a reference or a copy. If it consumes, it should be `into_`. Having both suggests one might be a legacy alias or they perform different internal operations (e.g., one clones, one moves) which is confusing.
D22 · Ambiguous naming. `closed()` typically implies a state check (boolean) or a future/stream of closure events. `close_reason()` implies getting the reason for closure. Returning the same type `ConnectionError` from both suggests they might be accessing the same internal state, but the names suggest different intents (state vs. reason).
D22 · Duplicate method name with different return types. This is a signature collision in the API surface (overloading by return type is not supported in Rust, so these must be on different types or one is a typo in the provided list, or they are methods on different traits/impls not shown as distinct types). Assuming they are on the same `Connection` type, this is a compilation error. If they are on different types (e.g., `Connection` vs `Incoming`), the naming is inconsistent. Looking at the list, `Incoming` has `remote_addr` etc., but `Connection` has two `alpn` methods listed. This is likely a data error or a severe API design flaw if they are on the same type.
P7 · Outbound HTTP without resilience iroh-relay/src/main.rs
P7 · Outbound HTTP without resilience iroh/src/util.rs

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €24,000–€120,000

Cost to rebuild	€24,000–€120,000 (0.2–0.7 person-years (397–1,258 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	1.0× (at 72% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€72,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 67% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

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

Top priorities

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

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

+4.5 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

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

+4.5 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists.

+3.5 pts · Medium effort · Documentation accuracy

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. The rest can wait behind it.

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

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

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

Architecture — module dependency matrix

Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

114 modules, 341 dependencies. 3 dependency cycles across 40 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 74 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 iroh.address_lookup.metrics	2 iroh_base.key	3 iroh_base.relay_url	4 iroh_relay.protos.relay	5 iroh.tls	6 iroh_dns.dns	7 iroh_dns.pkarr	8 iroh_relay.client.conn	9 iroh_relay.relay_map	10 iroh_dns.endpoint_info	11 iroh_relay.client	12 iroh_base.endpoint_addr	13 iroh.socket.remote_map.remote_state.path_watcher	14 iroh.net_report.reportgen	15 iroh.socket.remote_map.remote_state	16 iroh_dns_server.http	17 iroh.net_report.options.imp	18 iroh.net_report.report	19 iroh.socket.remote_map	20 iroh.net_report	21 iroh.socket.transports.ip	22 iroh.socket	23 iroh_relay.server.clients	24 iroh.socket.transports	25 iroh.endpoint.quic	26 iroh.socket.transports.relay.actor	27 iroh_dns_server.store.signed_packets	28 iroh.endpoint.connection	29 iroh_dns_server.store	30 iroh.endpoint	31 iroh_dns_server.server	32 iroh.address_lookup	34 iroh_dns_server.dns	35 iroh_relay.server.http_server	37 iroh.test_utils.test_transport	38 iroh_relay.server	39 iroh_relay.main
1 iroh.address_lookup.metrics
2 iroh_base.key
3 iroh_base.relay_url
4 iroh_relay.protos.relay
5 iroh.tls		1
6 iroh_dns.dns																														2		2
7 iroh_dns.pkarr		3
8 iroh_relay.client.conn		1		1
9 iroh_relay.relay_map			2
10 iroh_dns.endpoint_info		1	2				1					4																				1
11 iroh_relay.client		1	1	2		1		1
12 iroh_base.endpoint_addr		1	1							1														1				1
13 iroh.socket.remote_map.remote_state.path_watcher												2												4				7				1
14 iroh.net_report.reportgen			3			2			4				1					2						1						1
15 iroh.socket.remote_map.remote_state													3						2					13				8				3
16 iroh_dns_server.http													1
17 iroh.net_report.options.imp														1						1
18 iroh.net_report.report			2											1
19 iroh.socket.remote_map		1										1			2									5				1				2
20 iroh.net_report	1					2			2					4			1	2										1
21 iroh.socket.transports.ip																		1						1
22 iroh.socket		1	2		1	2		1	3	2		1	1	2	1		1	1	2	1				7	3			1		2		1
23 iroh_relay.server.clients	1			1		1								1							1															2
24 iroh.socket.transports												3						1			3	3
25 iroh.endpoint.quic																								2
26 iroh.socket.transports.relay.actor		2	6	3		2			1		2			1				1			1			4						1
27 iroh_dns_server.store.signed_packets	2						3										3							2
28 iroh.endpoint.connection													6											2	1					6
29 iroh_dns_server.store	2						4										1										1
30 iroh.endpoint		2	2			1			2	3		1								1		1		2	3	1		1
31 iroh_dns_server.server	1															1					1								1				1
32 iroh.address_lookup	2									7		1																		2
33 iroh_bench.iroh			1									1													1			1		1
34 iroh_dns_server.dns	1																							1					1		1
35 iroh_relay.server.http_server	3				3	1																	2	1	1					1						2
36 iroh.address_lookup.pkarr		3				5	1			4				1																2		4
37 iroh.test_utils.test_transport										1		3												1								1
38 iroh_relay.server			1		1				1					1											2						1			1			1
39 iroh_relay.main					2									2							2															12
40 iroh_relay.server.client	2			5				1						1							1		2	1											1	3

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

At a glance — Code Health · 90% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 8.3 D3 · Rust God Classes 8.6 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.7 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.9

The Bad

D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 6.5

At a glance — Architecture · 92% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 8.4 D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 7.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.5 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 9.8

The Bad

D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 6.0

At a glance — Maturity · 67% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.9 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 9.9 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 9.9 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 9.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 8.0

The Ugly

D20 · Rust ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 69% · Adequate · gated by P7 ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 9.6 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Rust License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 8.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 8.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Ugly

P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 69% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.6 D31 · Rust IaC & Container Security 7.8 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0

The Ugly

D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 1.7 D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5

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

The Good

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

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	12	High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection	11	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	2	Medium

Roadmap

First, establish architectural governance by resolving the missing Architecture Decision Records and ensuring all significant design choices are documented with context and consequences. Next, correct the documentation accuracy by aligning the README with the actual codebase, specifically removing references to non-existent ML or RAG capabilities. Then, harden outbound HTTP resilience by enforcing request timeouts on all clients and implementing retry logic with back-off for transient failures. Finally, enhance observability by integrating OpenTelemetry tracing and metrics to enable end-to-end request tracking across the system.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+4.5 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+4.5 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists.	+3.5 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Give every client a whole-request bound: `reqwest::Client::builder().timeout(Duration::from_secs(10))` (never `reqwest::get` or `Client::new()`, which have none), ureq's `timeout_global`, or wrap the call in `tokio::time::timeout`; add retry with back-off (`reqwest-retry`'s `RetryTransientMiddleware`, `backoff`) around dependencies that fail.	+3.3 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.	+2.8 pts	Medium	Observability
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10.	+1.7 pts	Medium	Documentation Quality
Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2).	+0.7 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED.	+0.7 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 46 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 7% slop · 45% mixed · 48% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.5	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
iroh/src/net_report.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh/src/socket/transports.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh/src/socket.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh/src/protocol.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh/src/socket/transports/ip.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh-relay/src/server.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh/src/endpoint.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
iroh/src/address_lookup/pkarr.rs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
REDACTED	6.9	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium advisory (unmaintained): REDACTED
iroh/src/net_report/reportgen.rs	7.4	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: Actor::run_inner (cognitive 18)
iroh-relay/src/client/tls.rs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: iroh_relay::client::tls::dial_happy_eyeballs (cyclomatic 16)

How the grades work

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

Critical — 16

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

Serious — 134

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

Minor — 18

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

Could not be resolved — 48

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

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 37 of 42 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 42 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D9D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D43AX10AX3AX4AX9ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6P7PF3

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, 144 of 168 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0eabe-a072-7900-b511-7027fc0af2f2.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (repository root, 52 test files), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a REDACTED) is simply not read here yet.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX2 Stateful singletons — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P10 Library API & versioning — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads NuGet packaging and C# public API only, and no .NET project was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X10 Duplicated predicate — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D22, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Client::spawn_qad_probes at 37.

Client::spawn_qad_probes (cyclomatic 37) · ×2iroh/src/net_report.rs:443

Transports::inner_poll_recv (cyclomatic 32)iroh/src/socket/transports.rs:278

Actor::run (cyclomatic 24)iroh/src/socket.rs:1481

ActiveRelayActor::run_connected (cyclomatic 23)iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:556

RemoteStateActor::run (cyclomatic 21)iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state.rs:237

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 Client finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with net_report.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Transports finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with transports.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Actor finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with socket.rs. — 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

27 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Client::spawn_qad_probes at 60.

Actor::run (cognitive 38) · ×5iroh/src/socket.rs:1481

Client::spawn_qad_probes (cognitive 60) · ×4iroh/src/net_report.rs:443

ActiveRelayActor::run_connected (cognitive 36) · ×4iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:556

RemoteStateActor::run (cognitive 23) · ×3iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state.rs:237

iroh_relay::client::tls::dial_happy_eyeballs (cognitive 33) · ×2iroh-relay/src/client/tls.rs:246

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

What to do

Resolve the 5 Actor finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with socket.rs (3), signed_packets.rs, reportgen.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Client finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with net_report.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 ActiveRelayActor finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with actor.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

17 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

FileTooLong: src/socket.rs · ×11iroh/src/socket.rs

TooManyMethods: QuicTransportConfigBuilder · ×3iroh/src/endpoint/quic.rs:93

MethodTooLong: Server.spawn · ×2iroh-relay/src/server.rs:691

TooManyFields: Metricsiroh/src/socket/metrics.rs:8

What to do

Resolve the 11 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with socket.rs, actor.rs, remote_state.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with quic.rs, connection.rs, endpoint.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with server.rs, net_report.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.7 / 10Stronggated by 27 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

25 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 2 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 8 of the 27 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×3iroh-base/src/endpoint_addr.rs:137

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×2iroh/src/net_report.rs:871

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2iroh-relay/src/client.rs:267

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:602

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2iroh/src/net_report.rs:571

+ 15 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with endpoint_addr.rs (2), endpoint.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with net_report.rs, iroh.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with client.rs, iroh.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

5 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence.

Off the main sequence: iroh-base

What to do

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

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

315 test methods: 233 unit, 82 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 315 `#[test]` function(s) across 52 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 10 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~9.7~~ 9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 99% · ceiling Verified

6 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. 85 of 86 direct crates were graded against crates.io (0 not published there, 1 not resolved by a committed REDACTED). Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.

Outdated: hyper-util · ×6

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 504 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.9 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: iroh/src/socket/transports.rs (6×32=192) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs (3 of 5 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: iroh/src/socket/transports.rsiroh/src/socket/transports.rs:278

Repeated repair: iroh-dns-server/src/http.rsiroh-dns-server/src/http.rs:101

What to do

Resolve the 1 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with transports.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with http.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state/path_watcher.rs. Counted over 90 of the 108 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 10Stronggated by 33 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

33 deducted task-comment markers across 45525 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.9. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×33iroh-dns-server/src/util.rs:155

What to do

Resolve the 33 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with remote_state.rs (5), socket.rs (3), http.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (33 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The iroh repository's READMEs are well written for their respective directories: the root README gives an overview and links to docs.rs, crates.io, Discord, YouTube, and a license badge; docker/README.md documents Docker images with build/run commands; iroh-base/README.md states licensing and dual-licensing contribution policy; iroh-dns-server/README.md describes the server's DNS and pkarr relay roles plus config examples; iroh-relay/README.md is a deep setup guide covering build, access control, HTTP callout, local testing, dev mode with QUIC address discovery, and dual-licensing. The READMEs are well structured with an outline (What is iroh?; Hole-punching; Built on [QUIC]; Compose Protocols; Getting Started; Rust Library; [derive(Debug, Clone)]; Other Languages; Links; Repository Structure; License; Contribution) present in the visible text and each document's scope is self-contained. The repository-wide architecture/design docs are not shown but the visible content is clear.

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The iroh repository's READMEs are well written for their respective directories: the root README gives an overview and links to docs.rs, crates.io, Discord, YouTube, and a license badge; docker/README.md documents Docker images with build/run commands; iroh-base/README.md states licensing and dual-licensing contribution policy; iroh-dns-server/README.md describes the server's DNS and pkarr relay roles plus config examples; iroh-relay/README.md is a deep setup guide covering build, access control, HTTP callout, local testing, dev mode with QUIC address discovery, and dual-licensing. The READMEs are well structured with an outline (What is iroh?; Hole-punching; Built on [QUIC]; Compose Protocols; Getting Started; Rust Library; [derive(Debug, Clone)]; Other Languages; Links; Repository Structure; License; Contribution) present in the visible text and each document's scope is self-contained. The repository-wide architecture/design docs are not shown but the visible content is clear.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

6 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 214 exposed types.

Redundant factory methods with unclear distinction. Both return a builder, but it is unclear if `n0_dns` is a specialized version of `builder` or if they produce different default configurations. In other types (e.g., PkarrPublisher), `n0_dns` is also present alongside `builder`, suggesting a pattern, but the naming is confusing for users who don't know the internal 'n0' convention.

Consistent but confusing pattern across multiple types. The presence of `n0_dns()` alongside `builder()` in both Publisher and Resolver suggests a library-specific convention ('n0') that is not self-explanatory. It creates cognitive load to determine which factory method to use.

Inconsistent naming and return types for similar operations. `from_endpoint_info` is a constructor-like static method. `set_endpoint_info` returns `EndpointData` (likely the stored data), while `add_endpoint_info` returns `Self` (unit/void). The distinction between 'set' and 'add' is not immediately obvious from the signature alone (does set overwrite? does add append?).

Standard Rust naming convention violation or confusion. `to_` usually implies borrowing/converting without consuming, while `into_` implies consuming the source. However, both return the same type `EndpointAddr`. If `to_endpoint_addr` borrows internally, it should return a reference or a copy. If it consumes, it should be `into_`. Having both suggests one might be a legacy alias or they perform different internal operations (e.g., one clones, one moves) which is confusing.

Ambiguous naming. `closed()` typically implies a state check (boolean) or a future/stream of closure events. `close_reason()` implies getting the reason for closure. Returning the same type `ConnectionError` from both suggests they might be accessing the same internal state, but the names suggest different intents (state vs. reason).

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

What to do

Resolve the 1 Redundant factory methods with unclear distinction. Both return a… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Consistent but confusing pattern across multiple types. The presence of… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming and return types for similar operations.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 5 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)1.7 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

11 finding(s): 0 critical, 10 high, 1 medium, 0 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 6 file(s) — `iroh-dns/src/dns.rs` (line 955), `iroh-relay/src/server/http_server.rs` (line 56), `iroh/src/address_lookup.rs` (lines 565–580), `iroh/src/endpoint.rs` (lines 1289–1316, line 1316, line 3059), `iroh/src/socket.rs` (line 878), … (+1 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 6 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.6 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

2 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 2 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security7.8 / 10Adequategated by 5 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (REDACTED/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

12 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 5 medium, 2 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 5 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
Resolve the 5 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

1 of 90 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is iroh-relay/src/client/util.rs. Counted over 90 of the 108 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: mapped_addrs.rs↔remote_state.rs 57%

Change coupling: mapped_addrs.rs ↔ remote_state.rsiroh/src/socket/mapped_addrs.rs

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX9 · CQS / query purity9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

`Client.get_report` is a read-named query yet it performs a durable write on the read path (a persist to a store/repository). A query must stay side-effect-free so reads are safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica; move the write into a command. — iroh/src/net_report.rs:296

What to do

Keep query handlers read-only — move the writes/event-publishes into a command handler so reads stay safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add a README to the 1 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.3 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists — searched for: `rag`, `langchain`, `llamaindex`, `pinecone`, `weaviate`, `qdrant`, `embeddings`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

`reqwest::Client::builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. 2 of the 2 files that make outbound calls are unbounded; the first 2 are listed. — iroh-relay/src/main.rs:221
`reqwest::Client::builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. — iroh/src/util.rs:16

What to do

Give every client a whole-request bound: `reqwest::Client::builder().timeout(Duration::from_secs(10))` (never `reqwest::get` or `Client::new()`, which have none), ureq's `timeout_global`, or wrap the call in `tokio::time::timeout`; add retry with back-off (`reqwest-retry`'s `RetryTransientMiddleware`, `backoff`) around dependencies that fail.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	90%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	92%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	67%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	69%	Adequate — gated by P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	69%	Adequate — gated by D29, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event Sourcing	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Solid.

Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 75 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~6814 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — too few calls resolved to assess navigability
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — D6 reads a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART/JAVA/PY/KT/TS/TSX/MTS/CTS/JS/JSX/MJS/CJS/PHP class graph only — this repository's production source is .rs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 37 value object(s); 1 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P10 Library API & versioning — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 16 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AX9 · CQS / query purity · Query writes persistent state on the read path · ×1

Query writes persistent state on the read path: Client.get_report iroh/src/net_report.rs:296 — `Client.get_report` is a read-named query yet it performs a durable write on the read path (a persist to a store/repository). A query must stay side-effect-free so reads are safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica; move the write into a command.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

Serious — 134 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×33

TodoComment iroh-dns-server/src/util.rs:155 — // TODO: less clones — 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 iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs:200 — // TODO: Graceful cancellation. — 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 iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs:299 — // 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 iroh-dns-server/src/dns/node_zone_handler.rs:31 — // TODO: This is used by ZoneHandler::origin — 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 iroh-dns-server/src/http/doh.rs:79 — // TODO: Port tests from — 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 iroh-relay/src/server.rs:486 — // TODO: accept_conn_limit and accept_conn_burst are not currently 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 iroh-relay/src/quic.rs:326 — // TODO(ramfox): I'd like to be able to cancel this so we can close cleanly — 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 iroh-relay/src/server/streams.rs:543 — // TODO: add a label for the frame type. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment iroh-relay/src/server/metrics.rs:107 — // TODO: only important stat that we cannot track right now — 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 iroh-relay/src/server/client.rs:513 — // TODO: add rate limiter — 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 iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:124 — // TODO: We don't support passing client transport config currently — 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 iroh/src/tls.rs:87 — // TODO: enable/disable 0-RTT/storing tickets — 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 iroh/src/socket.rs:100 — // TODO: Use 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 iroh/src/socket.rs:2749 — // TODO: Now check if we can connect to a repaired ep_3, but we can't modify that — 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 iroh/src/socket.rs:2864 — // TODO: could remove the addresses again, send, add it back and see it recover. — 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 iroh/src/protocol.rs:135 — // TODO(Frando): Rename to `from_std` — 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 iroh/src/net_report.rs:496 — // TODO: randomize choice? — 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 iroh/src/endpoint.rs:2728 — // TODO: Maybe not panic if this is not true? — 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 iroh/src/endpoint.rs:3879 — // TODO(Frando): Replace once we add a proper API for 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 iroh/src/address_lookup.rs:383 — // TODO(ramfox): this is currently unused. As we develop more `AddressLookup`s, we may discover that we do not need this. It is only truly relevant when comparing `relay_urls`, since we can attempt to dial any number of socket addresses, but expect each endpoint to have one "home relay" that we will attempt to contact them on. This means we would need some way to determine which relay url to choose between, if more than one relay url is reported. — 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 iroh/src/address_lookup/pkarr.rs:142 — // TODO(flub): huh? — 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 iroh/src/net_report/probes.rs:126 — // TODO: is this good? — 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 iroh/src/socket/transports.rs:1211 — // TODO: Revisit this: we might want to do something better. — 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 iroh/src/socket/transports.rs:1295 — // TODO: Revisit this: we might want to do something better. — 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 iroh/src/socket/remote_map.rs:48 — // TODO: use 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.
+ 8 more in this group — see findings.md.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×11

FileTooLong: src/socket.rs iroh/src/socket.rs — FileTooLong — 1153 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 653 over it, 2.31× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: relay/actor.rs iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs — FileTooLong — 819 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 319 over it, 1.64× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: remote_map/remote_state.rs iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state.rs — FileTooLong — 808 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 308 over it, 1.62× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: socket/transports.rs iroh/src/socket/transports.rs — FileTooLong — 764 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 264 over it, 1.53× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/endpoint.rs iroh/src/endpoint.rs — FileTooLong — 687 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 187 over it, 1.37× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/server.rs iroh-relay/src/server.rs — FileTooLong — 641 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 141 over it, 1.28× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/net_report.rs iroh/src/net_report.rs — FileTooLong — 613 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 61% of them inside a single declaration: Client (2 blocks, 137-823). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 113 over it, 1.23× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: server/http_server.rs iroh-relay/src/server/http_server.rs — FileTooLong — 592 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 92 over it, 1.18× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/dns.rs iroh-dns/src/dns.rs — FileTooLong — 576 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 76 over it, 1.15× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: net_report/reportgen.rs iroh/src/net_report/reportgen.rs — FileTooLong — 547 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 47 over it, 1.09× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: endpoint/connection.rs iroh/src/endpoint/connection.rs — FileTooLong — 525 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 25 over it, 1.05× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Actor · ×5

Actor::run (cognitive 38) iroh/src/socket.rs:1481 — Actor::run has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (23 pts), match/switch 5 (13 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Actor::collect_local_addresses (cognitive 21) iroh/src/socket.rs:1890 — Actor::collect_local_addresses has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Actor::handle_message (cognitive 20) iroh-dns-server/src/store/signed_packets.rs:149 — Actor::handle_message has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), match/switch 5 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
Actor::run_inner (cognitive 18) iroh/src/net_report/reportgen.rs:233 — Actor::run_inner has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (15 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Actor::update_direct_addresses (cognitive 16) iroh/src/socket.rs:1810 — Actor::update_direct_addresses has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Client · ×4

Client::spawn_qad_probes (cognitive 60) iroh/src/net_report.rs:443 — Client::spawn_qad_probes has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (37 pts), match/switch 5 (16 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 2 (nesting depth added 30). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: iroh/src/net_report.rs holds 4 of the 27 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 84 of the 292 points over it (29%), 2.4× the next-largest file (iroh/src/socket/transports.rs at 35). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client::have_enough_reports (cognitive 35) iroh/src/net_report.rs:661 — Client::have_enough_reports has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (24 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: iroh/src/net_report.rs holds 4 of the 27 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 84 of the 292 points over it (29%), 2.4× the next-largest file (iroh/src/socket/transports.rs at 35). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client::get_report (cognitive 31) iroh/src/net_report.rs:296 — Client::get_report has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), match/switch 3 (12 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: iroh/src/net_report.rs holds 4 of the 27 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 84 of the 292 points over it (29%), 2.4× the next-largest file (iroh/src/socket/transports.rs at 35). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Client::add_report_history_and_set_preferred_relay (cognitive 18) iroh/src/net_report.rs:749 — Client::add_report_history_and_set_preferred_relay has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 3 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: iroh/src/net_report.rs holds 4 of the 27 functions over the threshold — including the worst — and 84 of the 292 points over it (29%), 2.4× the next-largest file (iroh/src/socket/transports.rs at 35). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ActiveRelayActor · ×4

ActiveRelayActor::run_connected (cognitive 36) iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:556 — ActiveRelayActor::run_connected has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (19 pts), match/switch 5 (15 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ActiveRelayActor::run_dialing (cognitive 25) iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:451 — ActiveRelayActor::run_dialing has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (11 pts), if/else 3 (10 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ActiveRelayActor::run_sending (cognitive 18) iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:798 — ActiveRelayActor::run_sending has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (11 pts), if/else 2 (6 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
ActiveRelayActor::handle_relay_msg (cognitive 16) iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:715 — ActiveRelayActor::handle_relay_msg has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RemoteStateActor · ×3

RemoteStateActor::run (cognitive 23) iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state.rs:237 — RemoteStateActor::run has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), match/switch 4 (9 pts), loops 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RemoteStateActor::apply_selected_path (cognitive 17) iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state.rs:685 — RemoteStateActor::apply_selected_path has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (9 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RemoteStateActor::handle_msg_network_change (cognitive 16) iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state.rs:455 — RemoteStateActor::handle_msg_network_change has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (12 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×3

TooManyMethods: QuicTransportConfigBuilder iroh/src/endpoint/quic.rs:93 — TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (.github/workflows/ci.yml) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
TooManyMethods: Connection iroh/src/endpoint/connection.rs:748 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (.github/workflows/ci.yml) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
TooManyMethods: Builder iroh/src/endpoint.rs:131 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — a cargo-semver-checks gate in CI (.github/workflows/ci.yml) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) iroh-base/src/endpoint_addr.rs:137 — iroh-base/src/endpoint_addr.rs:137-142 | iroh-dns/src/endpoint_info.rs:165-170 — 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 (6 lines × 2) iroh-base/src/endpoint_addr.rs:147 — iroh-base/src/endpoint_addr.rs:147-152 | iroh-dns/src/endpoint_info.rs:152-157 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) iroh/src/endpoint.rs:1894 — iroh/src/endpoint.rs:1894-1899 | iroh/src/endpoint.rs:1900-1905 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Client · ×2

Client::spawn_qad_probes (cyclomatic 37) iroh/src/net_report.rs:443 — Client::spawn_qad_probes has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Client::have_enough_reports (cyclomatic 23) iroh/src/net_report.rs:661 — Client::have_enough_reports has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · iroh_relay · ×2

iroh_relay::client::tls::dial_happy_eyeballs (cognitive 33) iroh-relay/src/client/tls.rs:246 — iroh_relay::client::tls::dial_happy_eyeballs has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (22 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
iroh_relay::build_relay_config (cognitive 25) iroh-relay/src/main.rs:689 — iroh_relay::build_relay_config has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (13 pts), if/else 8 (11 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Transports · ×2

Transports::inner_poll_recv (cognitive 31) iroh/src/socket/transports.rs:278 — Transports::inner_poll_recv has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 6 (12 pts), if/else 8 (10 pts), match/switch 7 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Transports::bind (cognitive 16) iroh/src/socket/transports.rs:188 — Transports::bind has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 2 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×2

MethodTooLong: Server.spawn iroh-relay/src/server.rs:691 — MethodTooLong — spawn runs 141 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 41 over it, 1.41× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Client.spawn_qad_probes iroh/src/net_report.rs:443 — MethodTooLong — spawn_qad_probes runs 139 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 39 over it, 1.39× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) iroh/src/net_report.rs:871 — iroh/src/net_report.rs:871-892 | iroh/src/net_report.rs:940-961 — 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 (22 lines × 2) iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:289 — iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:289-310 | iroh/bench/src/noq.rs:258-279 — before extracting anything, compare `iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs` and `iroh/bench/src/noq.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) iroh-relay/src/client.rs:267 — iroh-relay/src/client.rs:267-281 | iroh-relay/src/client.rs:391-405 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:189 — iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:189-203 | iroh/bench/src/noq.rs:158-172 — before extracting anything, compare `iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs` and `iroh/bench/src/noq.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:602 — iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:602-613 | iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:818-829 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) iroh-relay/src/protos/relay.rs:427 — iroh-relay/src/protos/relay.rs:427-438 | iroh-relay/src/protos/relay.rs:562-573 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) iroh/src/net_report.rs:571 — iroh/src/net_report.rs:571-578 | iroh/src/net_report.rs:610-617 — 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) iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs:123 — iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs:123-130 | iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs:164-171 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) iroh-relay/src/client/streams.rs:118 — iroh-relay/src/client/streams.rs:118-126 | iroh-relay/src/server/streams.rs:240-249 — 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) iroh/src/net_report/reportgen.rs:723 — iroh/src/net_report/reportgen.rs:723-731 | iroh/src/net_report/reportgen.rs:763-771 — 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.

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience · ×2

Outbound HTTP without resilience iroh-relay/src/main.rs:221 — `reqwest::Client::builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. 2 of the 2 files that make outbound calls are unbounded; the first 2 are listed.
Outbound HTTP without resilience iroh/src/util.rs:16 — `reqwest::Client::builder(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Transports · ×1

Transports::inner_poll_recv (cyclomatic 32) iroh/src/socket/transports.rs:278 — Transports::inner_poll_recv has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Actor · ×1

Actor::run (cyclomatic 24) iroh/src/socket.rs:1481 — Actor::run has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ActiveRelayActor · ×1

ActiveRelayActor::run_connected (cyclomatic 23) iroh/src/socket/transports/relay/actor.rs:556 — ActiveRelayActor::run_connected has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RemoteStateActor · ×1

RemoteStateActor::run (cyclomatic 21) iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state.rs:237 — RemoteStateActor::run has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RouterBuilder · ×1

RouterBuilder::spawn (cyclomatic 17) iroh/src/protocol.rs:512 — RouterBuilder::spawn has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TransportsSender · ×1

TransportsSender::poll_send (cyclomatic 17) iroh/src/socket/transports.rs:965 — TransportsSender::poll_send has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · iroh_relay · ×1

iroh_relay::client::tls::dial_happy_eyeballs (cyclomatic 16) iroh-relay/src/client/tls.rs:246 — iroh_relay::client::tls::dial_happy_eyeballs has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×1

Hotspot: iroh/src/socket/transports.rs iroh/src/socket/transports.rs:278 — iroh/src/socket/transports.rs changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 32 in Transports::inner_poll_recv at line 278. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 20:21:04 +00:00' --until='2026-09-28 20:21:04 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- iroh/src/socket/transports.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×1

Repeated repair: iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs:101 — iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 5 (its worst body is HttpServer::spawn at line 101), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix(iroh-dns-server): enable TCP keepalive on HTTP listeners (#4462)”; “fix: bind iroh-dns-server to both IPv4 and IPv6 (#4432)”; “fix: remove vergen use from build.rs files (#4426)”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-30..2026-09-28, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-30 20:21:04 +00:00' --until='2026-09-28 20:21:04 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- iroh-dns-server/src/http.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RouterBuilder · ×1

RouterBuilder::spawn (cognitive 35) iroh/src/protocol.rs:512 — RouterBuilder::spawn has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (22 pts), match/switch 4 (11 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TransportsSender · ×1

TransportsSender::poll_send (cognitive 33) iroh/src/socket/transports.rs:965 — TransportsSender::poll_send has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (17 pts), match/switch 4 (10 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 19). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IpTransports · ×1

IpTransports::bind (cognitive 28) iroh/src/socket/transports/ip.rs:416 — IpTransports::bind has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (25 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Report · ×1

Report::update (cognitive 27) iroh/src/net_report/report.rs:68 — Report::update has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (26 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 14). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Server · ×1

Server::spawn (cognitive 24) iroh-relay/src/server.rs:691 — Server::spawn has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (14 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), if/else 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DnsResolver · ×1

DnsResolver::resolve_host_all (cognitive 20) iroh-dns/src/dns.rs:908 — DnsResolver::resolve_host_all has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), match/switch 4 (7 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Config · ×1

Config::is_valid_send_addr (cognitive 17) iroh/src/socket/transports/ip.rs:114 — Config::is_valid_send_addr has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (10 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant factory methods with unclear distinction. Both return a builder, but it is unclear if `n0_dns` is a specialized version of `builder` or if they produce different default configurations. In other types (e.g., PkarrPublisher), `n0_dns` is also present alongside `builder`, suggesting a pattern, but the naming is confusing for users who don't know the internal 'n0' convention. · ×1

Redundant factory methods with unclear distinction. Both return a builder, but it is unclear if `n0_dns` is a specialized version of `builder` or if they produce different default configurations. In other types (e.g., PkarrPublisher), `n0_dns` is also present alongside `builder`, suggesting a pattern, but the naming is confusing for users who don't know the internal 'n0' convention. — Remove `n0_dns` if it is merely an alias for `builder` with specific defaults, or rename `builder` to `custom` and keep `n0_dns` as the primary factory if 'n0' defaults are the standard use case. Alternatively, document clearly that `n0_dns` is a convenience method for a specific preset. (signatures: DnsAddressLookup.builder(origin_domain: String): DnsAddressLookupBuilder | DnsAddressLookup.n0_dns(): DnsAddressLookupBuilder)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Consistent but confusing pattern across multiple types. The presence of `n0_dns()` alongside `builder()` in both Publisher and Resolver suggests a library-specific convention ('n0') that is not self-explanatory. It creates cognitive load to determine which factory method to use. · ×1

Consistent but confusing pattern across multiple types. The presence of `n0_dns()` alongside `builder()` in both Publisher and Resolver suggests a library-specific convention ('n0') that is not self-explanatory. It creates cognitive load to determine which factory method to use. — Unify the naming convention. If `n0_dns` is the recommended way, make it the primary method or rename it to `default()` or `standard()`. If `builder` is the generic way, ensure `n0_dns` is clearly documented as a preset wrapper. (signatures: PkarrPublisher.builder(pkarr_relay: Url): PkarrPublisherBuilder | PkarrPublisher.n0_dns(): PkarrPublisherBuilder | PkarrResolver.builder(pkarr_relay: Url): PkarrResolverBuilder | PkarrResolver.n0_dns(): PkarrResolverBuilder)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent naming and return types for similar operations. `from_endpoint_info` is a constructor-like static method. `set_endpoint_info` returns `EndpointData` (likely the stored data), while `add_endpoint_info` returns `Self` (unit/void). The distinction between 'set' and 'add' is not immediately obvious from the signature alone (does set overwrite? does add append?). · ×1

Inconsistent naming and return types for similar operations. `from_endpoint_info` is a constructor-like static method. `set_endpoint_info` returns `EndpointData` (likely the stored data), while `add_endpoint_info` returns `Self` (unit/void). The distinction between 'set' and 'add' is not immediately obvious from the signature alone (does set overwrite? does add append?). — Standardize on `add` or `insert` for mutation. If `set` implies overwriting and `add` implies appending, the names are good, but the return types should be consistent (e.g., both return `Option<EndpointData>` for the previous value, or both return `Self`). Consider renaming `from_endpoint_info` to `new_with` or `from_iter` for clarity. (signatures: MemoryLookup.from_endpoint_info(infos: impl IntoIterator<Item = impl Into<EndpointInfo>>): Self | MemoryLookup.set_endpoint_info(endpoint_info: impl Into<EndpointInfo>): EndpointData | MemoryLookup.add_endpoint_info(endpoint_info: impl Into<EndpointInfo>))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Standard Rust naming convention violation or confusion. `to_` usually implies borrowing/converting without consuming, while `into_` implies consuming the source. However, both return the same type `EndpointAddr`. If `to_endpoint_addr` borrows internally, it should return a reference or a copy. If it consumes, it should be `into_`. Having both suggests one might be a legacy alias or they perform different internal operations (e.g., one clones, one moves) which is confusing. · ×1

Standard Rust naming convention violation or confusion. `to_` usually implies borrowing/converting without consuming, while `into_` implies consuming the source. However, both return the same type `EndpointAddr`. If `to_endpoint_addr` borrows internally, it should return a reference or a copy. If it consumes, it should be `into_`. Having both suggests one might be a legacy alias or they perform different internal operations (e.g., one clones, one moves) which is confusing. — Remove one. If `Item` is cheap to clone, `to_endpoint_addr` is fine. If it's expensive, `into_endpoint_addr` is better. Do not expose both unless they have distinct semantic meanings (e.g., one returns a reference, one returns an owned value, but the signature shows both return `EndpointAddr` owned). (signatures: Item.to_endpoint_addr(): EndpointAddr | Item.into_endpoint_addr(): EndpointAddr)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Ambiguous naming. `closed()` typically implies a state check (boolean) or a future/stream of closure events. `close_reason()` implies getting the reason for closure. Returning the same type `ConnectionError` from both suggests they might be accessing the same internal state, but the names suggest different intents (state vs. reason). · ×1

Ambiguous naming. `closed()` typically implies a state check (boolean) or a future/stream of closure events. `close_reason()` implies getting the reason for closure. Returning the same type `ConnectionError` from both suggests they might be accessing the same internal state, but the names suggest different intents (state vs. reason). — Rename `closed()` to `close_error()` or `last_close_error()` if it returns the error. If `closed()` is meant to be a state check, it should return `bool` or `Option<ConnectionError>`. Clarify the distinction between the state of being closed and the reason for closure. (signatures: Connection.close_reason(): ConnectionError | Connection.closed(): ConnectionError)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Duplicate method name with different return types. This is a signature collision in the API surface (overloading by return type is not supported in Rust, so these must be on different types or one is a typo in the provided list, or they are methods on different traits/impls not shown as distinct types). Assuming they are on the same `Connection` type, this is a compilation error. If they are on different types (e.g., `Connection` vs `Incoming`), the naming is inconsistent. Looking at the list, `Incoming` has `remote_addr` etc., but `Connection` has two `alpn` methods listed. This is likely a data error or a severe API design flaw if they are on the same type. · ×1

Duplicate method name with different return types. This is a signature collision in the API surface (overloading by return type is not supported in Rust, so these must be on different types or one is a typo in the provided list, or they are methods on different traits/impls not shown as distinct types). Assuming they are on the same `Connection` type, this is a compilation error. If they are on different types (e.g., `Connection` vs `Incoming`), the naming is inconsistent. Looking at the list, `Incoming` has `remote_addr` etc., but `Connection` has two `alpn` methods listed. This is likely a data error or a severe API design flaw if they are on the same type. — Ensure these are on distinct types. If on the same type, rename one to `alpn_protocol()` and `alpn_bytes()` or similar to distinguish the return type intent. (signatures: Connection.alpn(): &[u8] | Connection.alpn(): u8)

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

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFields · ×1

TooManyFields: Metrics iroh/src/socket/metrics.rs:8 — TooManyFields — 35 stored fields. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1

Change coupling: mapped_addrs.rs ↔ remote_state.rs iroh/src/socket/mapped_addrs.rs — `iroh/src/socket/mapped_addrs.rs` and `iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state.rs` change together 57% of the time (13 of the 23 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 13 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `14bae032` refactor(iroh)!: Use FourTuple for selected path (#4273); `d434c85e` feat: Implement custom transports (#3845); `2d8b2d49` refactor!: goodbye magic (#3887) — run `git show` on any of them.

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (59 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (59 corresponding lines) iroh/src/net_report.rs:831 — iroh/src/net_report.rs:831-892 | iroh/src/net_report.rs:900-961 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 59 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (33 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (33 lines × 2) iroh/src/net_report.rs:835 — iroh/src/net_report.rs:835-867 | iroh/src/net_report.rs:904-936 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) iroh/src/net_report.rs:583 — iroh/src/net_report.rs:583-607 | iroh/src/net_report.rs:622-646 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22–23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22–23 lines × 2) iroh/src/net_report.rs:695 — iroh/src/net_report.rs:695-716 | iroh/src/net_report.rs:723-745 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) iroh-dns/src/pkarr.rs:192 — iroh-dns/src/pkarr.rs:192-202 | iroh-dns/src/pkarr.rs:227-238 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) iroh/src/net_report.rs:508 — iroh/src/net_report.rs:508-517 | iroh/src/net_report.rs:525-534 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) iroh/src/address_lookup/pkarr.rs:636 — iroh/src/address_lookup/pkarr.rs:636-643 | iroh/src/address_lookup/pkarr.rs:671-677 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) iroh-dns/src/pkarr.rs:93 — iroh-dns/src/pkarr.rs:93-97 | iroh-dns/src/pkarr.rs:135-139 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (45 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (45 corresponding lines) iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:159 — iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:159-203 | iroh/bench/src/noq.rs:128-172 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 45 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:207 — iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:207-233 | iroh/bench/src/noq.rs:176-202 — before extracting anything, compare `iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs` and `iroh/bench/src/noq.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:160 — iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:160-182 | iroh/bench/src/noq.rs:129-151 — before extracting anything, compare `iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs` and `iroh/bench/src/noq.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:240 — iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:240-256 | iroh/bench/src/noq.rs:209-225 — before extracting anything, compare `iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs` and `iroh/bench/src/noq.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:260 — iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs:260-273 | iroh/bench/src/noq.rs:229-242 — before extracting anything, compare `iroh/bench/src/iroh.rs` and `iroh/bench/src/noq.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 118 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) iroh/bench/src/bin/bulk.rs:78 — iroh/bench/src/bin/bulk.rs:78-90 | iroh/bench/src/bin/bulk.rs:141-153 — 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.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: iroh-base — iroh-base: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

Minor — 12 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 1 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: iroh/src/socket/remote_map/remote_state/path_watcher.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

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

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 5 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 6.0/10. The most over is `iroh` (26108 LoC, 132 public types across 11 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 1 of 90 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 90 of the 108 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: iroh-relay/src/client/util.rs. Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

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

README/code drift — README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists — searched for: `rag`, `langchain`, `llamaindex`, `pinecone`, `weaviate`, `qdrant`, `embeddings`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

Minor — 6 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×6

Outdated: hyper-util — `hyper-util` is locked at 0.1.20 but 0.1.21 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.1.1"` requirement declared in iroh-relay/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p hyper-util` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: lru — `lru` is locked at 0.18.4 but 0.18.5 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.18.0"` requirement declared in iroh-dns-server/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p lru` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: rustls-platform-verifier — `rustls-platform-verifier` is locked at 0.7.0 but 0.7.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.7.0"` requirement declared in iroh-relay/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p rustls-platform-verifier` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: smallvec — `smallvec` is locked at 1.16.1 but 1.16.2 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.11.1"` requirement declared in iroh/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p smallvec` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tokio-rustls — `tokio-rustls` is locked at 0.26.5 but 0.26.6 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.26"` requirement declared in iroh-dns-server/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tokio-rustls` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: wasm-bindgen-futures — `wasm-bindgen-futures` is locked at 0.4.78 but 0.4.79 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.4"` requirement declared in iroh/Cargo.toml — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p wasm-bindgen-futures` and commit the updated REDACTED.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-45bfba8cf5aa4697916617e020e797a3/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-45bfba8cf5aa4697916617e020e797a3/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	11	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	2	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	12	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a0eabe-a072-7900-b511-7027fc0af2f2 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

N0-Computer/iroh

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 90% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 92% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 67% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 69% · Adequate · gated by P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 69% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

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

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts