Public report of nektos/act, published 23 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 23 October 2026, 22:00 UTC · Survey ID cd_b141bd9dc9c342aaaf021f79f273616c
nektos/act
Measured 23 October 2026, 21:59 UTC, at code version 4f41128
No regression since the last survey
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
CAI scoreAt riskNo change since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A small codebase: 14,239 lines of product code in 1 project, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 63
Findings by how serious they are
37 critical262 serious50 minor
16 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
23 October 2026, 21:59 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
A critical security finding is open, such as a library with a known critical vulnerability or a password or key found in the code. The score itself is unchanged, but its band shows At risk until the finding is fixed. See the Security and Compliance lens.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
57of 60 dimensions measured by tools. The other 3 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
318of 349 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 31 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
60dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 14,239 lines of product code in 1 project.
nektos/act scores 64 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged. The project hasn't declared a stable release yet, so its lenses are rated against a lower bar than a released product's, while the score itself is worked out as for any repository.
The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 63 and is rated Adequate. Its Outbound HTTP resilience dimension scores 3 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to resolve the 2 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. The weakest lenses score close to each other, so improving any of them moves the score.
37 findings are critical: 31 in Static Analysis (SAST), four in Dependency Vulnerabilities and two in IaC & Container Security.
Watchdog couldn't measure 15 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Internal API Consistency and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 14,239 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €27,000, to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 2 findings
These 2 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and are gone from this one.
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: GO-2026-5841 REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €27,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€9,100 to €45,000, for 151 to 479 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.9 at a score of 64. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Small: 14,239 lines of product code
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 1 point · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Resolve the 2 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €27,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 63 (Adequate). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 1 point for low effort, because it clears the 1 ADR Quality findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
What hard-to-read code costs each year · Cost
Four dimensions measure how easy the code is to work in: two measure how tangled its logic is, one how much of it is copied, and one how well each part sticks to a single job. In this codebase they average 6.2 out of 10. Code at that level is slower to change than clean code, and Watchdog estimates the extra work at 4% to 10% on every change. The history of the code shows how much it changes: about 889 lines over the last 90 days, which is about 3,605 lines a year. At that pace, the extra work comes to an estimated 0.4 to 2.4 engineer-days a year, and it grows as more code changes.
How this is estimated: The number of changed lines is measured from the history of the code. The rest rests on two assumptions of Watchdog's own: code scoring 8 out of 10 or more adds no extra work, and each point below 8 adds 2.5% to 5.6% to every change; and an engineer changes 150 to 400 lines in a day. The result is a range for planning, not a measurement.
Based on: Cyclomatic Complexity · Cognitive Complexity · Code Duplication · Cohesion (LCOM4) · the code's change history
What to do: Start with the files listed under Churn × Complexity Hotspots, which change often and are hard to read, because that is where the extra work is paid most often.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
17 modules, with 9 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
github.com/nektos/act/cmd uses github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common, so a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common can break github.com/nektos/act/cmd, while a change to github.com/nektos/act/cmd can't break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/nektos/act/cmd uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/nektos/act/cmd uses github.com/nektos/act/pkg/model, so a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/model can break github.com/nektos/act/cmd, while a change to github.com/nektos/act/cmd can't break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/model.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/nektos/act/cmd uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common/git uses github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common, so a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common can break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common/git, while a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common/git can't break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common/git uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/nektos/act/pkg/container uses github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common, so a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common can break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/container, while a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/container can't break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/nektos/act/pkg/container uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/nektos/act/pkg/exprparser uses github.com/nektos/act/pkg/model, so a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/model can break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/exprparser, while a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/exprparser can't break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/model.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/nektos/act/pkg/exprparser uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner uses github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common, so a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common can break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner, while a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner can't break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/common.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
29 pairs of types, where a type in github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner uses a type in github.com/nektos/act/pkg/model. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner uses github.com/nektos/act/pkg/model, so a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/model can break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner, while a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner can't break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/model.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner uses github.com/nektos/act/pkg/container, so a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/container can break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner, while a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner can't break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/container.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner uses github.com/nektos/act/pkg/exprparser, so a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/exprparser can break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner, while a change to github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner can't break github.com/nektos/act/pkg/exprparser.
Position
Below the diagonal: github.com/nektos/act/pkg/runner uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health · 64% · Adequate · gated by D2 ·
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
A05:2025 — Injection
69
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
18
High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration
4
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, resolve the missing architectural decision records and the two stale dependency pins to establish clear design history and secure external libraries. Next, improve performance by increasing allocation-aware density on hot paths and ensure every outbound HTTP client has explicit timeouts with retry and circuit-breaking logic to prevent unbounded calls.
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.
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 15 use(s) across 16,228 production line(s) (~0.9/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Give every `http.Client` an explicit `Timeout` (never call `http.Get`/`http.Post` or `http.DefaultClient`, which have none), or build each request with `http.NewRequestWithContext` under a `context.WithTimeout`; add retry with back-off (`hashicorp/go-retryablehttp`) and a breaker (`sony/gobreaker`) around dependencies that fail.
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 — 37
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 — 262
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 — 50
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 16
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. 57 of 60 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — 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 — 60 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 318 of 349 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a Codecov configuration (codecov.yml, target 50%) and a coverage step in CI (`codecov/codecov-action`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.go), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its npm package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Go dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (REDACTED), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D27 Navigability — 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. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D31 IaC & Container Security — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Pkg/runner/testdata/actions/action1/Dockerfile carries no `FROM` instruction, so it declares no build stage and every REDACTED rule this engine owns — the runtime-hardening, key-material, mutable-clone, no-op-shim, build-context, trust-anchor, install-guard, setuid and world-writable-path rules — is outside its own premise there and returned nothing. That silence is deliberate and correct: with no base image there is no image to reason about. It is reported here because it is NOT the same fact as a clean file, and coverage is stated as 7 of 8 Infrastructure-as-Code manifest(s) fully judged rather than as 100%. The vendor scanners (trivy, checkov) do read these files and their findings above stand; only this engine's own stage-keyed rules are absent. No owner action: a build file with no FROM is a legitimate include fragment.
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.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — 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. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (REDACTED). 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.
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.
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 reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Go is most of its product and is not read yet, 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.
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 reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Go is most of its product and is not read yet, 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.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
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.
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 reads C# syntax, and Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found, and this repository's Go is not read yet, 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.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, 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.
Repo exclusion declarations: 4 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.
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.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
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.
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (REDACTED, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
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.
39 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was (anonymous)::parse at 64. A further 2 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being RunContext.commandHandler at 17 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: pkg/runner/command.go (RunContext.commandHandler at 17). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
+ 26 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 5 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with (anonymous)::parse (cyclomatic 64), cmd.newRunCommand (cyclomatic 63), (anonymous) (cyclomatic 45). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 5 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 4.7 to about 6.4/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 30; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 56 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 4 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with (anonymous)::parse (cognitive 83), cmd.newRunCommand (cognitive 79), Job.GetMatrixes (cognitive 71). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 4 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 2.0 to about 3.2/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes7.8 / 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.
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 4 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 TooManyFields finding(s) in God Classes — start with input.go, runner.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with REDACTED, interpreter.go. — 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.
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.
28 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted.
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens)pkg/runner/action.go:387
+ 18 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with github_context.go, action_composite.go, logger.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with action.go (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with action_composite.go, REDACTED. — 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.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Resolve the 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_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.
193 test methods: 193 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Go suite contributes 193 test case(s) across 39 `_test.go` file(s) declaring at least one — every `func Test…(t *testing.T)` that `go test` would collect, plus the suite methods a testify-style runner reaches; a table-driven case list counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is INFERRED from file names, paths and build constraints, not declared: 0 of those file(s) use Go's external test package (`package x_test`), which is a visibility boundary rather than a pyramid tier and was not read as one.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.
Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.
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.
20 outdated, 0 author-deprecated direct Go module(s), 2 pinning or checksum defect(s). 38 of 38 direct requirement(s) were graded against proxy.golang.org (0 not served there, 3 publishing no tagged release to be behind). Whether any of these modules is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — proxy.golang.org publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, not a registry one. Known CVEs in this module graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED and go.sum there.
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/kballard/go-shellquote · ×2
Outdated: github.com/docker/cli · ×20
What to do
Resolve the 2 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: 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.
0 of 2 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 2 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 3 product package.json manifest(s). Its 3 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry. This repository publishes itself under ISC, which is its own choice and is not judged here. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's npm package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author. Counted over 39 of the 82 production source files in this repository: 42 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 1 have no attributable history left to measure.
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.
31 deducted task-comment markers across 14239 LoC (0.2/KLoC) → score 9.6. 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 · ×31pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:357
What to do
Resolve the 31 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with docker_cli.go (9), action.go (4), run_context_test.go (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (31 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.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README is a single cohesive document that clearly states the project (GitHub Actions local runner via `act`) and its two main benefits: fast feedback and local task replacement for make. It opens with an overview badge plus links to push/runners/Goreportcard/awesome-runners, then dives into 'Why would you want to do this?' before explaining how it works and ends with a VS Code tip pointing to the GitHub Local Actions docs. The body is clipped mid-sentence ('It uses the Docker API...') so further sections like Act User Guide, Support, Contributing, and Manually building from source are present in the outline but not shown; no installation or usage examples appear in the visible text.
What to do
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README is a single cohesive document that clearly states the project (GitHub Actions local runner via `act`) and its two main benefits: fast feedback and local task replacement for make. It opens with an overview badge plus links to push/runners/Goreportcard/awesome-runners, then dives into 'Why would you want to do this?' before explaining how it works and ends with a VS Code tip pointing to the GitHub Local Actions docs. The body is clipped mid-sentence ('It uses the Docker API...') so further sections like Act User Guide, Support, Contributing, and Manually building from source are present in the outline but not shown; no installation or usage examples appear in the visible text.
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.
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.
1 of 1 build units (Go) 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.
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.
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).
69 finding(s): 0 critical, 31 high, 38 medium, 0 low. 27 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 34 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
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 13 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 27 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (27 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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 (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), 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.
Resolve the 7 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Resolve the 2 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
20 of 40 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is pkg/exprparser/interpreter.go. Counted over 40 of the 82 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Resolve the 20 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with interpreter.go, REDACTED, schema.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (20 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. 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.
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.
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
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 — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
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.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
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
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
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 your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
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.
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
Dependabot is configured but does not watch `npm` — add that `package-ecosystem` entry to REDACTED so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
Make sure a person approves each release. The release job names an environment, but its approval rules live in the code host's settings, where Watchdog can't see them. Check that a reviewer must approve each release, or publish releases as drafts first, so a bad build can be stopped before anyone downloads it.
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.
`http.Client{` 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. — REDACTED:82
What to do
Give every `http.Client` an explicit `Timeout` (never call `http.Get`/`http.Post` or `http.DefaultClient`, which have none), or build each request with `http.NewRequestWithContext` under a `context.WithTimeout`; add retry with back-off (`hashicorp/go-retryablehttp`) and a breaker (`sony/gobreaker`) around dependencies that fail.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
What to do
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 15 use(s) across 16,228 production line(s) (~0.9/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Go: on hot paths, reuse buffers and objects through sync.Pool, preallocate slices and maps with make([]T, 0, n) / make(map[K]V, n), size builders with Grow, append with strconv.Append*, and reslice with buf[:0] instead of allocating anew.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether functions that make a cancellable request accept or pass on a context.Context (adoption curve).
Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.
Only 0/2 functions that make a cancellable request (net/http, net.Dial) accept a context.Context or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a cancelled request, a shutdown, an expired deadline. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it (`http.NewRequestWithContext`, `DialContext`); where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
`getVersionNotices` calls `http.NewRequest(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`. — REDACTED:65
`GetOutboundIP` calls `net.Dial(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`. — REDACTED:13
What to do
Thread a context.Context through functions that make requests, so the work stops when its caller gives up.
Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.
Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.
Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
`if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×13) — cmd/root.go:147, cmd/root.go:281, REDACTED:44, …
`if _, err := os.Lstat(os.ExpandEnv(p)); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — cmd/root.go:188
`if err := db.Get(id, cache); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:424
`if _, err := io.Copy(writer, ppty); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — REDACTED:266
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×3) — REDACTED:2684, REDACTED:3087, REDACTED:4832
What to do
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 55 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 applicable: this repository's Go imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's JavaScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No Go request handler (a net/http, Gin, Echo, Fiber or fasthttp handler, or a gRPC service method) is declared as a method or function, and no handler function literal writes a value captured from outside it, so no state is shared between request goroutines. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
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
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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 — ~9469 lines of test source are present (.go) 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.
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.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
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, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Aggregate roots were found in only one source directory (pkg), which is a layered codebase, not two contexts. 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 — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.go), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
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.
D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this Go build ships 1 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
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 signals for this style, 2 needed — the count is met but a required primary signal is absent): 1 aggregate root(s) (types guarding their own state behind command methods — this language has no AggregateRoot base to inherit); 2 value object(s)
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. 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
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
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 (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a `func BenchmarkXxx(b *testing.B)` in any `_test.go` file, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: Go has no async/await function colour, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — 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
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and 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 applicable: this check asks whether the null-typed discipline a language offers is switched on, and how much of that the assertion operator takes back, and in this repository's languages there is no such switch and no such operator. Go's type system has no nullable and non-nullable types — every pointer, map, slice and interface is nil-able at every position, there is no switch that turns null checking on, and the compiler produces no nullability warning for an operator to silence. Plain JavaScript carries no type annotations and commits no tsconfig, so it states no null-typed discipline for this check to grade: there is nothing here that switches null checking on or off, and TypeScript (or `// @ts-check`) is how a repository acquires one — advice, not a defect this card measures. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
TodoComment pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:357— // TODO: don't support force deleting cache entries — 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 pkg/artifactcache/doc.go:5— // TODO: Restrictions for accessing a cache, see https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/caching-dependencies-to-speed-up-workflows#restrictions-for-accessing-a-cache
TodoComment pkg/artifactcache/doc.go:6— // TODO: Force deleting cache entries, see https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/caching-dependencies-to-speed-up-workflows#force-deleting-cache-entries
TodoComment pkg/container/docker_cli_test.go:69— // TODO(dnephin): fix tests to accept ContainerConfig; see https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/31621
TodoComment pkg/container/docker_cli_test.go:296— // TODO Windows: The Windows version uses read-write as that's the only mode it supports. Can change this post TP4 — 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 pkg/container/docker_cli.go:40— // TODO(thaJeztah): define these in the API-types, or query available defaults — 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 pkg/container/docker_cli.go:66— // TODO(thaJeztah): we need a flag-type to handle []netip.Addr directly — 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 pkg/container/docker_cli.go:78— // TODO(thaJeztah): we need a flag-type to handle []netip.Addr directly — 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 pkg/container/docker_cli.go:126— // TODO(thaJeztah): we need a flag-type to handle netip.Addr directly — 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 pkg/container/docker_cli.go:127— // TODO(thaJeztah): we need a flag-type to handle netip.Addr directly — 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 pkg/container/docker_cli.go:330— // TODO(thaJeztah): remove in next release (v30.0, or v29.x) — 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 pkg/container/docker_cli.go:430— // TODO(thaJeztah): remove uses of go-connections/nat here. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment pkg/container/docker_cli.go:438— // TODO(thaJeztah): we need an equivalent that handles the "ip-address" part without depending on the nat package. — 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 pkg/container/docker_cli.go:818— // TODO should we error if _any_ advanced option is used? (i.e. forbid to combine advanced notation with the "old" flags (`--network-alias`, `--link`, `--ip`, `--ip6`)? — 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 pkg/model/action.go:103— // TODO enable after verifying that this runner side feature has rolled out in actions/runner — 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 pkg/runner/step_run.go:96— // TODO: Currently we just ignore top level keys, BUT we should return proper error on them — 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 pkg/runner/step_action_remote.go:122— // TODO: figure out if it will be easy to shadow/alias go-git err's — 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 pkg/runner/runner_test.go:235— // TODO: figure out why it fails — 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 pkg/runner/runner_test.go:315— // TODO: move all testdata into pkg so we can validate it with planner and runner — 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 pkg/runner/run_context_test.go:78— // TODO: move to sc.NewExpressionEvaluator(), because "steps" context is not available here — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment pkg/runner/run_context_test.go:85— // TODO: This does not throw an error, because the evaluator does not know if the expression is inside ${{ }} or not — 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 pkg/runner/run_context_test.go:111— // TODO: This does not throw an error, because the evaluator does not know if the expression is inside ${{ }} or not — 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 pkg/runner/run_context_test.go:129— // TODO: This does not throw an error, because the evaluator does not know if the expression is inside ${{ }} or not — 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 REDACTED:1097— // TODO: remove below 2 lines when we can release act with breaking changes — 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 REDACTED:37— // todo: cleanup EvaluationEnvironment creation — 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.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) cmd/root.go:147— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) cmd/root.go:188— `if _, err := os.Lstat(os.ExpandEnv(p)); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) cmd/root.go:281— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:44— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:419— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:424— `if err := db.Get(id, cache); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:455— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:18— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:266— `if _, err := io.Copy(writer, ppty); err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:263— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:630— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:635— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:641— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) REDACTED:647— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/container/docker_cli.go:1156— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) pkg/runner/step_run.go:194— `if err != nil` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
(anonymous)::parse (cognitive 83) REDACTED:3379— (anonymous)::parse has cognitive complexity 83 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (50 pts), boolean chains 11, ternaries 6 (10 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 34). 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: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::expand (cognitive 58) REDACTED:2955— (anonymous)::expand has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (42 pts), ternaries 3 (7 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 30). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::matchOne (cognitive 52) REDACTED:3869— (anonymous)::matchOne has cognitive complexity 52 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (37 pts), loops 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 27). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::_getAgent (cognitive 31) REDACTED:2580— (anonymous)::_getAgent has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (11 pts), boolean chains 10, ternaries 4 (10 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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::getLiteral (cognitive 29) REDACTED:1934— (anonymous)::getLiteral has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (21 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::globGenerator::globGenerator_1 (cognitive 25) REDACTED:1231— (anonymous)::globGenerator::globGenerator_1 has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 3, error handling 1 (2 pts) (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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::ensureAbsoluteRoot (cognitive 23) REDACTED:1449— (anonymous)::ensureAbsoluteRoot has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (21 pts), boolean chains 2 (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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::v1 (cognitive 23) REDACTED:4649— (anonymous)::v1 has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 11, if/else 6 (8 pts), ternaries 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::range (cognitive 20) REDACTED:2813— (anonymous)::range has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (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. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::match (cognitive 19) REDACTED:3808— (anonymous)::match has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (15 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (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: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::toString (cognitive 17) REDACTED:167— (anonymous)::toString has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (14 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::fixupPattern (cognitive 17) REDACTED:1885— (anonymous)::fixupPattern has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (9 pts), boolean chains 8 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::constructor (cognitive 16) REDACTED:2243— (anonymous)::constructor has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous)::parse (cyclomatic 64) REDACTED:3379— (anonymous)::parse has cyclomatic complexity 64 (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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous)::expand (cyclomatic 26) REDACTED:2955— (anonymous)::expand has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous)::matchOne (cyclomatic 26) REDACTED:3869— (anonymous)::matchOne has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous)::_getAgent (cyclomatic 24) REDACTED:2580— (anonymous)::_getAgent 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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous)::v1 (cyclomatic 23) REDACTED:4649— (anonymous)::v1 has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous)::globGenerator::globGenerator_1 (cyclomatic 17) REDACTED:1231— (anonymous)::globGenerator::globGenerator_1 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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous)::getLiteral (cyclomatic 17) REDACTED:1934— (anonymous)::getLiteral 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. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
FileTooLong: REDACTED REDACTED— FileTooLong — 2890 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded; the length bar is tripled for a single-responsibility module of 4 or fewer top-level units). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 2390 over it, 5.78× 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: REDACTED REDACTED— FileTooLong — 781 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 87% of them inside a single declaration: RunContext (43 blocks, 32-1177). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 281 over it, 1.56× 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: REDACTED REDACTED— FileTooLong — 637 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 82% of them inside a single declaration: containerReference (31 blocks, 69-915). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 137 over it, 1.27× 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: cmd/root.go cmd/root.go— FileTooLong — 568 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 68 over it, 1.14× 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.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) pkg/model/github_context.go:55— pkg/model/github_context.go:55-69 | REDACTED:1011-1025 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) pkg/runner/action_composite.go:206— pkg/runner/action_composite.go:206-220 | pkg/runner/job_executor.go:205-219 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/runner/action_composite.go:206` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) pkg/runner/logger.go:202— pkg/runner/logger.go:202-216 | pkg/runner/logger.go:226-240 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/runner/logger.go:202` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) pkg/runner/action.go:177— pkg/runner/action.go:177-182 | pkg/runner/action.go:551-556 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/runner/action.go:177` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) pkg/runner/action.go:351— pkg/runner/action.go:351-356 | pkg/runner/step_docker.go:80-85 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/runner/action.go:351` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) REDACTED:70— REDACTED:70-75 | REDACTED:82-87 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:70` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) REDACTED:2684— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) REDACTED:3087— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Swallowed exception (empty catch) REDACTED:4832— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 24) REDACTED:111— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 24 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 12 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 127, toString, a function literal at line 115, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 24) REDACTED:4044— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 24 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 24 function items inside it that branch (mergeOptions, TunnelingAgent, TunnelingAgent::onFree, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 17) REDACTED:603— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 15 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 645, a function literal at line 662, a function literal at line 607, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 17) REDACTED:687— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 9 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 9 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit · ×2
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/kballard/go-shellquote — Direct dependency `github.com/kballard/go-shellquote` is required at `v0.0.0-20180428030007-95032a82bc51` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2018-04-28, 8.5 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `github.com/kballard/go-shellquote` and has not moved this requirement in 8.5 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `github.com/kballard/go-shellquote` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.
Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore — Direct dependency `github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore` is required at `v0.0.0-20210923224102-525f6e181f06` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2021-09-23, 5.1 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore` and has not moved this requirement in 5.1 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `github.com/sabhiram/go-gitignore` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.
(anonymous) (cognitive 21) REDACTED:554— (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (9 pts), boolean chains 8, loops 1 (2 pts), ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 3). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 7 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 571, issueCommand, a function literal at line 559, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
(anonymous) (cognitive 21) REDACTED:1586— (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (12 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 7). None of this is in the body itself: all 21 points belong to 2 function items inside it that branch (constructor, toString). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
TooManyFields: Input cmd/input.go:10— TooManyFields — 57 stored fields beside 9 methods. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 27 over it, 1.90× 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.
TooManyFields: Config pkg/runner/runner.go:22— TooManyFields — 42 stored fields beside 1 method. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 12 over it, 1.40× 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.
TooManyMethods: RunContext REDACTED:32— TooManyMethods — 54 methods, declared across 4 files: REDACTED (42), runner/command.go (5), REDACTED (5), runner/action_composite.go (2). The bar is 30 methods; this is 24 over it, 1.80× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: interperterImpl pkg/exprparser/interpreter.go:69— TooManyMethods — 35 methods, declared across 2 files: exprparser/interpreter.go (20), REDACTED (15). The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: RunContext REDACTED:32— ClassTooLong — 681 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 54 methods, 43 blocks, lines 32-1177. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 281 over it, 1.70× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: containerReference REDACTED:209— ClassTooLong — 521 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 30 methods, 31 blocks, lines 69-915. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 121 over it, 1.30× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) pkg/runner/action_composite.go:165— pkg/runner/action_composite.go:165-172 | pkg/runner/action_composite.go:227-235 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/runner/action_composite.go:227` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) REDACTED:130— REDACTED:130-138 | REDACTED:1154-1161 — 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 × 3) pkg/runner/action.go:391— pkg/runner/action.go:391-398 | REDACTED:190-197 | pkg/runner/step_docker.go:97-104 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) pkg/runner/action_composite.go:206— pkg/runner/action_composite.go:206-213 | pkg/runner/job_executor.go:205-212 | REDACTED:260-267 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Low cohesion: HostEnvironment (LCOM4 10) REDACTED:28— HostEnvironment's methods fall into 10 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 10 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: Job (LCOM4 6) REDACTED:196— Job's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Function without context.Context · ×2
Function without context.Context: getVersionNotices REDACTED:65— `getVersionNotices` calls `http.NewRequest(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`.
Function without context.Context: GetOutboundIP REDACTED:13— `GetOutboundIP` calls `net.Dial(…)` but takes no context.Context and reaches none its caller controls, so its caller cannot cancel the request once it has started. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it: `http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, …)`, `(&net.Dialer{}).DialContext(ctx, …)`.
cmd.newRunCommand (cyclomatic 63) cmd/root.go:391— cmd.newRunCommand has cyclomatic complexity 63 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 63 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 392). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 45) REDACTED:210— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 45 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 12 of the 45 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 43 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 226, getInput, exportVariable, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 35) REDACTED:5— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 35 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 19 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 41, a function literal at line 25, a function literal at line 18, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
workflowpattern.PatternToRegex (cyclomatic 31) REDACTED:38— workflowpattern.PatternToRegex has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). Of this number, 28 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 28) REDACTED:752— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 28 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 34 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 928, a function literal at line 783, a function literal at line 827, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 27) REDACTED:1404— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 27 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 6 function items inside it that branch (ensureAbsoluteRoot, safeTrimTrailingSeparator, dirname, …). Those helpers are already separate functions, so extracting the branching again is not available. To reduce it, move them out of the body to the enclosing scope, where each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
runner.execAsDocker (cyclomatic 26) pkg/runner/action.go:248— runner.execAsDocker has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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.
FileCollector.CollectFiles (cyclomatic 25) REDACTED:128— FileCollector.CollectFiles has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 130). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
HttpClient.request (cyclomatic 25) REDACTED:2363— HttpClient.request has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 25 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 2364). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
git.NewGitCloneExecutor (cyclomatic 24) pkg/common/git/git.go:300— git.NewGitCloneExecutor has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 24 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 301). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
HttpClient._getAgent (cyclomatic 24) REDACTED:2580— HttpClient._getAgent has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
interperterImpl.evaluateFuncCall (cyclomatic 21) pkg/exprparser/interpreter.go:611— interperterImpl.evaluateFuncCall has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Handler.gcCache (cyclomatic 20) pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:438— Handler.gcCache has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Job.GetMatrixes (cyclomatic 20) REDACTED:401— Job.GetMatrixes has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
model.NewWorkflowPlanner (cyclomatic 19) pkg/model/planner.go:59— model.NewWorkflowPlanner has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
RunContext.startJobContainer (cyclomatic 19) REDACTED:255— RunContext.startJobContainer has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 19 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 256). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
stepActionRemote.prepareActionExecutor (cyclomatic 19) pkg/runner/step_action_remote.go:40— stepActionRemote.prepareActionExecutor has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 19 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 41). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 19) REDACTED:554— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 9 of the 19 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 7 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 571, issueCommand, a function literal at line 559, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
container.parseEnvFile (cyclomatic 18) REDACTED:14— container.parseEnvFile has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 18 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 16). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
runner.getEvaluatorInputs (cyclomatic 18) REDACTED:482— runner.getEvaluatorInputs has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
runner.rewriteSubExpression (cyclomatic 17) REDACTED:416— runner.rewriteSubExpression 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.
runner.newJobExecutor (cyclomatic 17) pkg/runner/job_executor.go:23— runner.newJobExecutor has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 104, 42, 85, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Node.UnmarshalYAML (cyclomatic 17) pkg/schema/schema.go:237— Node.UnmarshalYAML has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
DefaultGlobber.globGenerator (cyclomatic 17) REDACTED:1230— DefaultGlobber.globGenerator has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 17 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 1231). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Pattern.fixupPattern (cyclomatic 17) REDACTED:1885— Pattern.fixupPattern has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
Pattern.getLiteral (cyclomatic 17) REDACTED:1934— Pattern.getLiteral 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.
RunContext.getGithubContext (cyclomatic 16) REDACTED:881— RunContext.getGithubContext has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
(anonymous) (cyclomatic 16) REDACTED:2719— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 16 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 6 function items inside it that branch (checkBypass, a function literal at line 2730, getProxyUrl, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 17 of the 39 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 194 of the 354 points over it (55%), 4× the next-largest file (cmd/root.go at 48). 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.
cmd.newRunCommand (cognitive 79) cmd/root.go:391— cmd.newRunCommand has cognitive complexity 79 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 52 (64 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 2 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 15). None of this is in the body itself: all 79 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 392). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Job.GetMatrixes (cognitive 71) REDACTED:401— Job.GetMatrixes has cognitive complexity 71 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 10 (38 pts), if/else 10 (28 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), jumps 1 (nesting depth added 49). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
workflowpattern.PatternToRegex (cognitive 63) REDACTED:38— workflowpattern.PatternToRegex has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (41 pts), boolean chains 10, loops 3 (6 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 34). Of this number, 61 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
runner.execAsDocker (cognitive 51) pkg/runner/action.go:248— runner.execAsDocker has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (46 pts), boolean chains 5 (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.
(anonymous) (cognitive 50) REDACTED:210— (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 19, if/else 15 (19 pts), ternaries 8, error handling 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 50 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 43 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 226, exportVariable, getInput, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
model.NewWorkflowPlanner (cognitive 45) pkg/model/planner.go:59— model.NewWorkflowPlanner has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (40 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 25). Of this number, 39 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
HttpClient.request (cognitive 45) REDACTED:2363— HttpClient.request has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (29 pts), loops 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 24). None of this is in the body itself: all 45 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 2364). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Handler.gcCache (cognitive 43) pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:438— Handler.gcCache has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (32 pts), loops 5 (11 pts) (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.
runner.getEvaluatorInputs (cognitive 43) REDACTED:482— runner.getEvaluatorInputs has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (33 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
runnerImpl.NewPlanExecutor (cognitive 42) pkg/runner/runner.go:122— runnerImpl.NewPlanExecutor has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (33 pts), loops 4 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 28). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 42 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 130). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
(anonymous) (cognitive 40) REDACTED:5— (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), boolean chains 12, error handling 4, ternaries 4, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 40 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 19 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 41, a function literal at line 25, a function literal at line 18, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
expressionEvaluator.evaluateMappingYamlNode (cognitive 38) REDACTED:266— expressionEvaluator.evaluateMappingYamlNode has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (36 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 21). Of this number, 33 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
FileCollector.CollectFiles (cognitive 34) REDACTED:128— FileCollector.CollectFiles has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (26 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). None of this is in the body itself: all 34 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 130). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
RunContext.startJobContainer (cognitive 34) REDACTED:255— RunContext.startJobContainer has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (25 pts), loops 5 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 15). None of this is in the body itself: all 34 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 256). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
(anonymous) (cognitive 33) REDACTED:4044— (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (21 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 3 (5 pts), ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 33 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 24 function items inside it that branch (mergeOptions, TunnelingAgent::onFree, TunnelingAgent, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
common.GetOutboundIP (cognitive 32) REDACTED:13— common.GetOutboundIP has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (21 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), match/switch 1 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 21). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
stepActionRemote.prepareActionExecutor (cognitive 32) pkg/runner/step_action_remote.go:40— stepActionRemote.prepareActionExecutor has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (27 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 13). None of this is in the body itself: all 32 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 41). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
runner.rewriteSubExpression (cognitive 31) REDACTED:416— runner.rewriteSubExpression has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (27 pts), boolean chains 3, 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.
container.parseEnvFile (cognitive 30) REDACTED:14— container.parseEnvFile has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (22 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 14). None of this is in the body itself: all 30 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 16). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Pattern.getLiteral (cognitive 29) REDACTED:1934— Pattern.getLiteral has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (21 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
git.NewGitCloneExecutor (cognitive 28) pkg/common/git/git.go:300— git.NewGitCloneExecutor has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (23 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 5). None of this is in the body itself: all 28 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 301). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
cmd.printList (cognitive 27) cmd/list.go:11— cmd.printList has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (23 pts), loops 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
interperterImpl.getPropertyValue (cognitive 27) pkg/exprparser/interpreter.go:248— interperterImpl.getPropertyValue has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (17 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 16). 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.
LocalRepositoryCache.GetTarArchive (cognitive 27) REDACTED:44— LocalRepositoryCache.GetTarArchive has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (27 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
Node.checkMapping (cognitive 27) pkg/schema/schema.go:362— Node.checkMapping has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (26 pts), 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.
(anonymous) (cognitive 27) REDACTED:752— (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 12, ternaries 8, if/else 4, error handling 3. Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 27 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 34 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 928, a function literal at line 783, a function literal at line 827, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
runner.readActionImpl (cognitive 26) pkg/runner/action.go:43— runner.readActionImpl has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (26 pts) (nesting depth added 16). Of this number, 24 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
Node.checkSingleExpression (cognitive 25) pkg/schema/schema.go:125— Node.checkSingleExpression has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (17 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 13). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 25 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 140). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
DefaultGlobber.globGenerator (cognitive 25) REDACTED:1230— DefaultGlobber.globGenerator has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 3, error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 9). None of this is in the body itself: all 25 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 1231). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
runner.getHashFilesFunction (cognitive 24) REDACTED:170— runner.getHashFilesFunction has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 15). None of this is in the body itself: all 24 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 171). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
interperterImpl.format (cognitive 23) REDACTED:67— interperterImpl.format has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (13 pts), if/else 3 (9 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 14). 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.
runner.newJobExecutor (cognitive 23) pkg/runner/job_executor.go:23— runner.newJobExecutor has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (20 pts), loops 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 23 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 104, 42, 85, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
git.CloneIfRequired (cognitive 22) pkg/common/git/git.go:232— git.CloneIfRequired has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (20 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RunContext.ApplyExtraPath (cognitive 22) REDACTED:489— RunContext.ApplyExtraPath has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (19 pts), loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
RunContext.GetBindsAndMounts (cognitive 21) REDACTED:127— RunContext.GetBindsAndMounts has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
HttpClient._getAgent (cognitive 21) REDACTED:2580— HttpClient._getAgent has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (11 pts), boolean chains 10 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
interperterImpl.hashFiles (cognitive 20) REDACTED:183— interperterImpl.hashFiles has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), loops 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
HttpClient._processResponse (cognitive 20) REDACTED:2646— HttpClient._processResponse has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), boolean chains 5, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 3). None of this is in the body itself: all 20 points belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 2648, 2660). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
(anonymous) (cognitive 20) REDACTED:1683— (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), ternaries 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). None of this is in the body itself: all 20 points belong to 5 function items inside it that branch (getSearchPaths, match, a function literal at line 1756, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
cmd.bugReport (cognitive 19) cmd/root.go:167— cmd.bugReport has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (10 pts), loops 5 (8 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
HostEnvironment.exec (cognitive 19) REDACTED:285— HostEnvironment.exec has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (19 pts) (nesting depth added 3). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Node.UnmarshalYAML (cognitive 19) pkg/schema/schema.go:237— Node.UnmarshalYAML has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (16 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Pattern.fixupPattern (cognitive 19) REDACTED:1885— Pattern.fixupPattern has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 10, if/else 7 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 2). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
(anonymous) (cognitive 19) REDACTED:687— (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 8, if/else 5 (7 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 3). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 19 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 9 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 703, a function literal at line 691, a function literal at line 694, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
HostEnvironment.GetContainerArchive (cognitive 18) REDACTED:121— HostEnvironment.GetContainerArchive has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (18 pts) (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.
model.createStages (cognitive 18) pkg/model/planner.go:343— model.createStages has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (12 pts), loops 4 (6 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.
runner.setupWorkflowInputs (cognitive 18) REDACTED:538— runner.setupWorkflowInputs has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
expressionEvaluator.evaluateSequenceYamlNode (cognitive 18) REDACTED:324— expressionEvaluator.evaluateSequenceYamlNode has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (16 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Workflow.WorkflowDispatchConfig (cognitive 17) REDACTED:117— Workflow.WorkflowDispatchConfig has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (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.
RunContext.NewExpressionEvaluatorWithEnv (cognitive 17) REDACTED:34— RunContext.NewExpressionEvaluatorWithEnv has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 3 (9 pts), if/else 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
stepRun.setupShell (cognitive 17) pkg/runner/step_run.go:164— stepRun.setupShell has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), loops 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.
Command.toString (cognitive 17) REDACTED:167— Command.toString has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (14 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
DefaultGlobber.stat (cognitive 17) REDACTED:1328— DefaultGlobber.stat has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). None of this is in the body itself: all 17 points belong to one function literal inside it that branches (line 1329). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
(anonymous) (cognitive 17) REDACTED:2719— (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (13 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 1). None of this is in the body itself: all 17 points belong to 6 function items inside it that branch (checkBypass, a function literal at line 2730, getProxyUrl, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
container.logDockerResponse (cognitive 16) pkg/container/docker_logger.go:27— container.logDockerResponse has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), 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.
interperterImpl.evaluateFuncCall (cognitive 16) pkg/exprparser/interpreter.go:611— interperterImpl.evaluateFuncCall has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), loops 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RunContext.getGithubContext (cognitive 16) REDACTED:881— RunContext.getGithubContext has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (16 pts) (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
HttpClient.constructor (cognitive 16) REDACTED:2243— HttpClient.constructor has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (15 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
(anonymous) (cognitive 16) REDACTED:603— (anonymous) has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 5, error handling 4, if/else 4, ternaries 3. Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 16 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 15 function items inside it that branch (a function literal at line 645, a function literal at line 662, a function literal at line 607, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: REDACTED holds 23 of the 74 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 332 of the 1014 points over it (33%), 4× the next-largest file (REDACTED at 84). 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.
FunctionTooLong: cmd.newRunCommand cmd/root.go:391— FunctionTooLong — newRunCommand runs 222 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 122 over it, 2.22× 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: RunContext.startJobContainer REDACTED:255— MethodTooLong — startJobContainer runs 133 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 33 over it, 1.33× 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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) pkg/runner/action.go:387— pkg/runner/action.go:387-439 | pkg/runner/action_composite.go:197-220 | pkg/runner/job_executor.go:200-219 | REDACTED:186-253 | REDACTED:255-437 | pkg/runner/step_docker.go:92-135 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
Duplicated block (48 lines × 2) REDACTED:122— REDACTED:122-169 | REDACTED:50-97 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:50` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (26–27 lines × 2) pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:251— pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:251-276 | pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:292-318 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) pkg/runner/action.go:530— pkg/runner/action.go:530-553 | pkg/runner/action.go:634-657 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/runner/action.go:530` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `pkg/runner/action.go:527` calls `populateEnvsFromInput`, `getEnv` and `pkg/runner/action.go:631` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (19–21 lines × 2) REDACTED:759— REDACTED:759-779 | REDACTED:94-112 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:759` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (18–19 lines × 2) REDACTED:21— REDACTED:21-38 | REDACTED:526-544 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:21` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (16–18 lines × 2) REDACTED:85— REDACTED:85-100 | REDACTED:147-164 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:85` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) pkg/exprparser/interpreter.go:494— pkg/exprparser/interpreter.go:494-510 | pkg/exprparser/interpreter.go:513-529 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) pkg/container/docker_network.go:13— pkg/container/docker_network.go:13-27 | pkg/container/docker_network.go:46-61 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/container/docker_network.go:13` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:465— pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:465-476 | pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:482-493 | pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:499-510 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/artifactcache/handler.go:465` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) pkg/container/docker_images.go:17— pkg/container/docker_images.go:17-28 | pkg/container/docker_images.go:45-56 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) pkg/runner/action.go:184— pkg/runner/action.go:184-193 | pkg/runner/action.go:559-569 | pkg/runner/action.go:662-672 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) REDACTED:459— REDACTED:459-468 | REDACTED:502-511 — 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 (9 lines × 4) pkg/runner/action.go:390— pkg/runner/action.go:390-398 | pkg/runner/action_composite.go:205-213 | pkg/runner/job_executor.go:204-212 | pkg/runner/step_docker.go:96-104 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) REDACTED:189— REDACTED:189-197 | REDACTED:259-267 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `REDACTED:258` calls `platformImage` and `REDACTED:188` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) pkg/common/draw.go:65— pkg/common/draw.go:65-69 | pkg/common/draw.go:76-80 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/common/draw.go:65` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (3–5 lines × 3) pkg/runner/action.go:401— pkg/runner/action.go:401-405 | REDACTED:279-281 | pkg/runner/step_docker.go:107-111 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `pkg/runner/action.go:401` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `pkg/runner/action.go:405` calls `Sprintf` and `REDACTED:281` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) REDACTED:209— REDACTED:209-219 | pkg/runner/step_run.go:152-162 — 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 (8 lines × 2) REDACTED:73— REDACTED:73-80 | REDACTED:91-98 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:73` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Outbound HTTP without resilience REDACTED:82— `http.Client{` 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.
Orphaned file pkg/exprparser/interpreter.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file REDACTED:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/schema/schema.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/runner/step_action_remote.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file REDACTED:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/model/github_context.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/runner/job_executor.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/runner/action_composite.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/runner/step_run.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/runner/action_cache.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/runner/reusable_workflow.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file REDACTED:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file REDACTED:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/container/docker_socket.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/runner/step_docker.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/runner/step_action_local.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file REDACTED:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file REDACTED:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file cmd/list.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/container/linux_container_environment_extensions.go:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Duplicated predicate pkg/container/docker_socket.go:49— `(r < 'a' || r > 'z') && (r < 'A' || r > 'Z')` appears character-identically in 2 files — pkg/container/docker_socket.go, REDACTED. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate REDACTED:35— `len(line) >= 3 && line[0] == 239 && line[1] == 187 && line[2] == 191` appears character-identically in 2 files — REDACTED, REDACTED. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
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 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (18771 LoC, 131 module-visible types across 16 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.
Dormant codebase — 20 of 40 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 20 separate risks. Counted over 40 of the 82 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
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.
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Not all functions that make a request accept a context.Context · ×1
Not all functions that make a request accept a context.Context — Only 0/2 functions that make a cancellable request (net/http, net.Dial) accept a context.Context or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a cancelled request, a shutdown, an expired deadline. Take `ctx context.Context` as the first parameter and build the request with it (`http.NewRequestWithContext`, `DialContext`); where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
Outdated: github.com/docker/cli — `github.com/docker/cli` is required at v29.3.0+incompatible in REDACTED, but v29.9.2+incompatible is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/docker/cli@v29.9.2+incompatible && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/docker/go-connections — `github.com/docker/go-connections` is required at v0.6.0 in REDACTED, but v0.8.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/docker/go-connections@v0.8.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5 — `github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5` is required at v5.9.0 in REDACTED, but v5.9.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5@v5.9.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/go-git/go-git/v5 — `github.com/go-git/go-git/v5` is required at v5.16.5 in REDACTED, but v5.19.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/go-git/go-git/v5@v5.19.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5 — `github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5` is required at v5.3.0 in REDACTED, but v5.3.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5@v5.3.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/mattn/go-isatty — `github.com/mattn/go-isatty` is required at v0.0.20 in REDACTED, but v0.0.24 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/mattn/go-isatty@v0.0.24 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/moby/go-archive — `github.com/moby/go-archive` is required at v0.1.0 in REDACTED, but v0.3.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/moby/go-archive@v0.3.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/moby/moby/api — `github.com/moby/moby/api` is required at v1.54.0 in REDACTED, but v1.56.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/moby/moby/api@v1.56.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/moby/moby/client — `github.com/moby/moby/client` is required at v0.3.0 in REDACTED, but v0.6.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/moby/moby/client@v0.6.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/moby/patternmatcher — `github.com/moby/patternmatcher` is required at v0.6.0 in REDACTED, but v0.6.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/moby/patternmatcher@v0.6.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/opencontainers/selinux — `github.com/opencontainers/selinux` is required at v1.13.1 in REDACTED, but v1.15.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/opencontainers/selinux@v1.15.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/rhysd/actionlint — `github.com/rhysd/actionlint` is required at v1.7.7 in REDACTED, but v1.7.12 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/rhysd/actionlint@v1.7.12 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/sirupsen/logrus — `github.com/sirupsen/logrus` is required at v1.9.3 in REDACTED, but v1.10.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/sirupsen/logrus@v1.10.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/spf13/cobra — `github.com/spf13/cobra` is required at v1.10.1 in REDACTED, but v1.10.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/spf13/cobra@v1.10.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/spf13/pflag — `github.com/spf13/pflag` is required at v1.0.9 in REDACTED, but v1.0.10 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/spf13/pflag@v1.0.10 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/stretchr/testify — `github.com/stretchr/testify` is required at v1.11.1 in REDACTED, but v1.12.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/stretchr/testify@v1.12.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: go.etcd.io/bbolt — `go.etcd.io/bbolt` is required at v1.4.3 in REDACTED, but v1.5.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get go.etcd.io/bbolt@v1.5.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: golang.org/x/term — `golang.org/x/term` is required at v0.42.0 in REDACTED, but v0.47.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get golang.org/x/term@v0.47.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: google.golang.org/protobuf — `google.golang.org/protobuf` is required at v1.36.9 in REDACTED, but v1.36.12 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get google.golang.org/protobuf@v1.36.12 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: tags.cncf.io/container-device-interface — `tags.cncf.io/container-device-interface` is required at v1.1.0 in REDACTED, but v1.1.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get tags.cncf.io/container-device-interface@v1.1.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
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.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a16ac6-70c9-7d02-bed5-e038a478bd80 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 37 · Warnings: 262 · Recommendations: 30 · Info: 20 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 23-10-2026 @ 21:59 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.