OpenBot — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

⚠ A critical security finding caps this grade — resolve it before relying on the score below; see the Security lens.

Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.

The system is at risk, carrying a health score of 37%. While the codebase is technically sound in isolation, its operational fragility threatens delivery speed and reliability. This medium-sized asset, comprising roughly 50,000 lines of production code, represents a manageable rebuild cost of approximately €44,000 if necessary, but the current state exposes the business to significant operational drag and security exposure.

The primary danger lies in operational readiness, which scores a critical 21%. This low score indicates that the system lacks the testing, observability, and deployment automation required for safe, independent operation. Without these safeguards, every release carries a high probability of outage or regression, directly impacting customer trust and increasing the cost of maintaining the service. The risk is not in the code’s complexity, but in the inability to verify and deploy changes safely.

A secondary concern is the velocity tax imposed by code quality. With an average quality score of 6.0 out of 10, the codebase imposes a hidden cost on every modification. Changes in weaker areas likely take 5–11% longer than they should, creating a compounding delay that slows feature delivery. This inefficiency is not a one-time fix but a recurring expense that drains engineering capacity and increases long-term maintenance costs.

Despite these risks, the system demonstrates genuine strength in its architectural coherence and domain modeling, which remain stable and well-structured. The code is not boilerplate-heavy, and the core logic is clear, providing a solid foundation for improvement. This balance ensures that remediation efforts will yield tangible returns without requiring a complete rewrite.

The highest-leverage action is to integrate static application security testing (SAST) into the continuous integration pipeline. This single step addresses the most critical security gaps and establishes a baseline for automated quality checks. It is a low-effort, high-impact change that pays for itself within months by preventing security regressions and reducing manual review overhead. Prioritizing this step will immediately reduce exposure and improve the reliability of the release process, setting the stage for broader operational improvements.

Code Health 67% Adequate · gated by R1 Architecture 68% Adequate · gated by D6, R9 Maturity 70% Strong Readiness 21% Weak · gated by D10, R4, R8, P3, P4, P7 Security 68% Adequate · gated by D29, D30, D36 Accessibility 32% Weak · gated by AC1, AC2, AC4 Performance 82% Strong

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

Readiness 21% · 46% weightAccessibility 32% · 25% weightCode Health 67% · 14% weightSecurity 68% · 8% weightArchitecture 68% · 4% weightMaturity 70% · 2% weightPerformance 82% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 21 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 37 → ~51.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (100+)

181 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-14) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required. Showing the first 100; the full set is in the report.

D1 · CVPixelBuffer.resized (cyclomatic 21) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/BlueDress/CVPixelBuffer+.swift
D2 · CVPixelBuffer.resized (cognitive 32) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/BlueDress/CVPixelBuffer+.swift
D4 · Near-duplicate member pair (118 shared lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift
D4 · Edited copy of a member (18 corresponding lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift
D4 · Edited copy of a member (23 corresponding lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift
D4 · Edited copy of a member (9 corresponding lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift
D4 · Edited copy of a member (11 corresponding lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) policy/openbot/models.py
D4 · Duplicated block (69 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift
D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/Flash.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/ControllerActivity.kt
D4 · Duplicated block (42 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java
D4 · Duplicated block (36–37 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java
D4 · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/ConnectionMonitor.java
D4 · Duplicated block (20–23 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/main/SettingsFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 5) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (18 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (16–18 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java
D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/WebRtcServer.java
D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java
D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BarCodeScannerFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/ImageUtils.java
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/ImageUtils.java
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Autopilot.java
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/RtspServer.java
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/GameController.java
D4 · Duplicated block (3–7 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 6) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/InfoDialogFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/vehicle/BluetoothManager.java
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java
D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) policy/openbot/dataloader.py
D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) policy/openbot/train.py
D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) policy/openbot/models.py
D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) policy/openbot/models.py
D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) policy/openbot/models.py
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) policy/openbot/models.py
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) policy/openbot/callbacks.py
D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) policy/openbot/callbacks.py
D4 · Duplicated block (7–10 lines × 2) policy/openbot/train.py
D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) policy/openbot/models.py
D4 · Duplicated block (6–8 lines × 3) policy/openbot/train.py
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) policy/openbot/models.py
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) policy/openbot/train.py
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) policy/openbot/utils.py

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €14,000–€73,000

Cost to rebuild	€14,000–€73,000 (0.1–0.5 person-years (241–764 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 37% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€44,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 21% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 3 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with OpenBotTests.swift, OpenBotUITests.swift, OpenBotUITestsLaunchTests.swift.

+7.6 pts · Low effort · Test Quality

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.

+14.5 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

Automate the release in CI — a deploy stage for a service (Helm/Kubernetes manifests or an equivalent rollout), or a tag-triggered publish job for an artifact — so releases are repeatable and reversible.

+14.5 pts · Medium effort · Deployment & Rollback

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk

This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 21%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.3 person-years rebuild (50,700 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 21%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

The top fix pays for itself · High · Economics

The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 5.2–31.2 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~41,245 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 1–7 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 5–11% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.

Evidence: D15 churn: 10,170 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~41,245/year · D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.0/10 ⇒ a 5–11% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Low effort ⇒ about 1–3 engineer-day(s)

→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 7 months.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.

A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics

The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.0/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 5–11% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)

Evidence: D1/D2/D4/D6 code quality: averaging 6.0/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured

→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

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

116 modules, 98 dependencies. 1 dependency cycle across 11 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 76 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 open-code.src.components.blockly.fields.BlocklyReactField	2 org.openbot.app.robot.model	3 org.openbot.app.robot.pointGoalNavigation.rendering	4 org.openbot.app.robot.server	5 org.openbot.controller.NetworkServiceConnection.SocketHandler	6 org.openbot.controller.PhoneSensorToDualDriveConverter	7 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.Accelerator	8 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.Brake	9 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.DriveModeTiltLayout	10 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.DualDriveSeekBar	11 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.MirrorImage	12 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.Sound	13 org.openbot.controller.utils.LocalEventBus	14 org.openbot.controller.utils.Utils	15 policy.frontend.src.utils.useProgress	17 org.openbot.app.robot.tflite	18 org.openbot.controller.NetworkServiceConnection	21 org.openbot.app.robot.customview	22 org.openbot.app.robot.tracking	23 org.openbot.app.robot.utils	24 org.openbot.controller	25 org.openbot.app.robot.main	27 org.openbot.app.robot.common	28 org.openbot.app.robot.modelManagement	29 org.openbot.app.robot.googleServices	30 org.openbot.app.robot.pointGoalNavigation	31 org.openbot.app.robot.projects	32 org.openbot.app.robot.env	36 org.openbot.app.robot.vehicle
1 open-code.src.components.blockly.fields.BlocklyReactField
2 org.openbot.app.robot.model
3 org.openbot.app.robot.pointGoalNavigation.rendering
4 org.openbot.app.robot.server
5 org.openbot.controller.NetworkServiceConnection.SocketHandler
6 org.openbot.controller.PhoneSensorToDualDriveConverter
7 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.Accelerator
8 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.Brake
9 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.DriveModeTiltLayout
10 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.DualDriveSeekBar
11 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.MirrorImage
12 org.openbot.controller.customComponents.Sound
13 org.openbot.controller.utils.LocalEventBus
14 org.openbot.controller.utils.Utils
15 policy.frontend.src.utils.useProgress
16 open-code.src.components.blockly.fields.DateField	1
17 org.openbot.app.robot.tflite																												1	2
18 org.openbot.controller.NetworkServiceConnection					1
19 org.openbot.controller.utils													2	1
20 policy.frontend.src.pages															1
21 org.openbot.app.robot.customview																2
22 org.openbot.app.robot.tracking																1												2	1
23 org.openbot.app.robot.utils																1											1
24 org.openbot.controller						1											1
25 org.openbot.app.robot.main		6																		2									4
26 org.openbot.controller.customComponents							2	2	1	3	1	1									1
27 org.openbot.app.robot.common		1		2												1				2		1						3	1
28 org.openbot.app.robot.modelManagement																5						2			2		1
29 org.openbot.app.robot.googleServices																1								1			4	1
30 org.openbot.app.robot.pointGoalNavigation			3													1						1	1
31 org.openbot.app.robot.projects																5			1			4	2		1	6		4	1
32 org.openbot.app.robot.env																				5							1		1
33 org.openbot.app.robot.logging																1				3			1		1		1	3
34 org.openbot.app.robot.profile																									1		1	1
35 org.openbot.app.robot.robot																				3			2					1
36 org.openbot.app.robot.vehicle																				1		3						3
37 org.openbot.app.robot																													1
38 org.openbot.app.robot.autopilot																3			1	3			1						1
39 org.openbot.app.robot.objectNav																3			1	4			1						1
40 org.openbot.app.robot.original				2												6		3	1	4								9	2

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

At a glance — Code Health · 67% · Adequate · gated by R1 ·

The Good

D4 · Swift Code Duplication 8.4 D17 · Swift Explicit Debt 10.0 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 8.7 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 9.5 R3 · React / TS Large Files 8.5 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 9.7 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0

The Bad

D1 · Swift Cyclomatic Complexity 6.6 D2 · Swift Cognitive Complexity 6.0 D3 · Swift God Classes 6.4

The Ugly

R1 · React / TS Type Safety 2.5

At a glance — Architecture · 68% · Adequate · gated by D6, R9 ·

The Good

D35 · Swift Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 7.8 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0 R11 · React / TS Import Boundaries 8.9

The Ugly

D6 · Swift Cohesion (LCOM4) 2.9 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 3.9

At a glance — Maturity · 70% · Strong ·

The Good

D15 · Swift Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Swift Bus Factor 9.9 D19 · Swift Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · Swift Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

D34 · Swift Knowledge Freshness 5.2 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 5.7 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0

The Ugly

D20 · Swift ADR Quality 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 21% · Weak · gated by D10, R4, R8, P3, P4, P7 ·

The Good

D9 · Swift Test Distribution 8.6 D13 · Swift Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Swift License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 R6 · React / TS Tooling 6.7

The Bad

P2 · Repo Observability 4.5 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

D10 · Swift Test Quality 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 2.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0 R4 · React / TS Test Coverage 2.7 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 0.0

At a glance — Security · 68% · Adequate · gated by D29, D30, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Swift Secrets (history) 10.0 D32 · Swift Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) 8.1 D43 · Swift Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Swift Platform End-of-Life 10.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 8.0

The Ugly

D29 · Swift Static Analysis (SAST) 0.5 D30 · Swift Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0 D36 · Swift Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5

At a glance — Accessibility · 32% · Weak · gated by AC1, AC2, AC4 ·

The Good

AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 10.0

The Bad

AC3 · Repo Page structure 5.2

The Ugly

AC1 · Repo Text alternatives 3.1 AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 2.7 AC4 · Repo Keyboard semantics 1.0 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 82% · Strong ·

The Good

PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.9 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	89	High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection	60	High / Critical
A04:2021 — Insecure Design	2	Medium

Roadmap

First, integrate automated security scanning into the CI pipeline to block regressions and establish repeatable, reversible deployment processes. Next, clean up the dependency list by removing unused packages and explicitly declaring imports to improve maintainability. Then, expand test coverage to include currently unreached production modules, ensuring critical code paths are validated. Finally, enforce strict timeouts and resilience patterns on all outbound HTTP calls to prevent system instability.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 3 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with OpenBotTests.swift, OpenBotUITests.swift, OpenBotUITestsLaunchTests.swift.	+7.6 pts	Low	Test Quality
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+14.5 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Automate the release in CI — a deploy stage for a service (Helm/Kubernetes manifests or an equivalent rollout), or a tag-triggered publish job for an artifact — so releases are repeatable and reversible.	+14.5 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.	+14.5 pts	Medium	Dependency Hygiene
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).	+14.5 pts	Medium	Test Coverage
Set connect and read timeouts on every client (`RestTemplateBuilder.connectTimeout/readTimeout`, WebClient `responseTimeout`, `HttpRequest.Builder.timeout`, `HttpURLConnection.setReadTimeout`, Feign `connectTimeout`/`readTimeout` in configuration), and wrap calls to dependencies in resilience4j `@Retry`/`@CircuitBreaker`/`@TimeLimiter` (or Spring Retry).	+14.4 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.	+14.2 pts	Medium	Observability
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.	+14.1 pts	Medium	Release Hygiene

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 145 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 3% slop · 31% mixed · 66% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.0	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.8	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.0	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.1	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift	5.5	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: runRobot.display (cyclomatic 19)
ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift	5.5	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: expandedAutoPilot.init (cognitive 17)
ios/OpenBot/OpenBotTests/OpenBotTests.swift	5.5	Mixed	Test Quality: Assertions commented out: testExample
ios/OpenBot/OpenBotUITests/OpenBotUITests.swift	5.5	Mixed	Test Quality: Assertions commented out: testExample
ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift	5.5	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ServerWebrtcDelegate.didReceiveData (cyclomatic 18)
ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift	5.5	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: FreeRoamController.viewDidLoad (cognitive 18)
ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift	5.5	Mixed	God Classes: MethodTooLong: jsEvaluator.evaluateJavaScript
ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift	5.5	Mixed	God Classes: TooManyMethods: expandSetting
ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift	5.6	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens)

How the grades work

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

Critical — 131

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 — 571

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 — 32

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

Could not be resolved — 43

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. 56 of 59 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 — 59 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D6D9D10D13D14D15D16D17D19D20D21D28D29D30D32D34D35D36D43D44AC1AC2AC3AC4AC6AC7AX10AX3AX4AX9M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6P7PF2PF3R1R10R11R2R3R4R6R7R8R9S1X29

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, 712 of 734 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0f448-b842-7853-b907-aa49a3958480.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D5 Coupling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.kt, .java, .swift, .py, .js) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report` or the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task, or lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`, or `coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`, or lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report` or the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task, or lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`, or `coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`, or lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 5 test(s) behind this row are the ones the code-model census could read, and this repository also carries at least 13 test source file(s) (.kt, .java, .py, .js) that it cannot: it reads the test types the .swift frontend declared, so a suite in any other language is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT SCORED: this repository's production source includes .swift, .java, and the built-in reliability runner cannot re-run the .swift, .java test suite(s) — so reliability was not measured for the repository as a whole. The Python (repository root, 7 test files): measured (0 flaky) suite(s) did re-run, and came back with 0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s) — but that is a figure for one half of the product, and we do not publish a partial one as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — test reliability is excluded from the score rather than counted.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Dependency Hygiene ran out of its 5-minute budget before it had finished, so what it reports here is a floor rather than a complete count. The rows above are real and stand; what is not known is how many more there are. This is a limit of the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its JVM dependencies. Nothing was read about its Python dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
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 package.json, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its JVM dependencies. Nothing was read about its npm 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 (android/comlib/build.gradle), 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.
D26 Project Cohesion — 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. Project size and spread are measured over build units (a .NET project, a Maven or Gradle module, an npm package, a Go module, a Cargo crate, a Python, Composer, Bundler, Mix, rebar3, sbt, SwiftPM or pub package) whose source a code model reads. This repository's production source is in a language no model reads, or in units whose build tool D26 does not recognise. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository's projects are cohesive.
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. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/BottomSheet.swift`, `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift`, `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/GifLoader.swift` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and no container it models, or knows cannot hold a captive, was found in this repository's source, 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.
AX2 Stateful singletons — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection singletons in C#, Spring/JSR-330/CDI singletons in Java and Kotlin, and module state in Python request handlers only, and this repository's product is written in Swift, which was left unread, 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.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — 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. Those languages have allocation-aware idioms of their own, but this check does not read them yet. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the code is careless with allocations.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — 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. Those languages colour their functions async, so blocking inside them is the same defect this card counts elsewhere, but their blocking vocabulary is not modelled yet. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the code is free of it.
R4 Test Coverage — 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. 34 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 74.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. X7 measured the part of this repository it reads (C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust and Go), and its Dart, Java, Kotlin, Swift source is outside the check's reach, so the card covers only part of the product. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the unread source is free of silent defaults.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
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.
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 REDACTED, 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.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
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 Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

39 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was bottomBar.BottomBar at 58. A further 5 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being remote_keyboard.RemoteKeyboard at 40 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 5 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/remote_keyboard.js (remote_keyboard.RemoteKeyboard at 40), controller/node-js/server/remote-keyboard.js (remote-keyboard.RemoteKeyboard at 29), open-code/src/components/drawer/drawer.js (drawer.RightDrawer at 26), open-code/src/components/navBar/header.js (header.RightSection at 17), android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BotFunctions.java (BotFunctions.displaySensorData at 16). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

RemoteKeyboard::processKey (cyclomatic 39) · ×2controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/remote_keyboard.js:19

bottomBar.BottomBar (cyclomatic 58)open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:30

ProfileOptionModal (cyclomatic 34)open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/profileOptionModal.js:22

CommandHandler.handle_keys (cyclomatic 33)controller/python/keyboard-pygame.py:59

BlocklyComponent.BlocklyComponent (cyclomatic 32)open-code/src/components/blockly/BlocklyComponent.jsx:27

+ 27 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 RemoteKeyboard finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with remote_keyboard.js, remote-keyboard.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 bottomBar.BottomBar (cyclomatic 58) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with bottomBar.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ProfileOptionModal (cyclomatic 34) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with profileOptionModal.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

87 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was bottomBar.BottomBar at 97.

RemoteKeyboard::processKey (cognitive 65) · ×2controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/remote_keyboard.js:19

BottomBar::generateCode (cognitive 49) · ×2open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:96

bottomBar.BottomBar (cognitive 97)open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:30

simpleInputComponent.SimpleInputComponent (cognitive 85)open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js:14

CommandHandler.handle_keys (cognitive 80)controller/python/keyboard-pygame.py:59

+ 72 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 RemoteKeyboard finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with remote_keyboard.js, remote-keyboard.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 BottomBar finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with bottomBar.js (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 bottomBar.BottomBar (cognitive 97) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with bottomBar.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

61 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: Vehicle · ×23android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/vehicle/Vehicle.java:18

ClassTooLong: jsEvaluator · ×14ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:13

FunctionTooLong: bottomBar.BottomBar · ×9open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:30

MethodTooLong: jsEvaluator.evaluateJavaScript · ×8ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:70

FileTooLong: JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift · ×7ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift

What to do

Resolve the 23 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Vehicle.java, FreeRoamController.swift, RobotInfoFrame.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 warning-level).
Resolve the 14 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with JsEvaluator.swift, RunRobot.swift, FreeRoamController.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with bottomBar.js (2), modelUploadingComponent.js, editProfileModal.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

172 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 18 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×16ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:203

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×14ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:119

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×11ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:346

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×11ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:864

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×10ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift:21

+ 71 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 16 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ExpandedAutoPilot.swift (4), HomePageViewController.swift (2), ExpandSetting.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 14 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ExpandedAutoPilot.swift (4), JsEvaluator.swift, Browser.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Resolve the 11 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ExpandedAutoPilot.swift (2), AutopilotFragment.java (2), JsEvaluator.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)2.9 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

43 of 73 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: HomePageViewController (LCOM4 24) · ×43ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/HomePage/HomePageViewController.swift:38

What to do

Resolve the 43 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with Detector.swift (2), HomePageViewController.swift, JsEvaluator.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (43 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 Distribution8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

28 test methods: 25 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 3 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 11 `it`/`test` case(s) across 2 test file(s) declaring at least one beside 10 .NET test method(s); its tier split is read from package names and paths only. The Python suite contributes 7 test function(s) across 7 file(s) declaring at least one — every `def test…` in a file pytest or unittest would collect, which is those frameworks' own definition of a case; a parametrize table counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is read from file names and paths only.

What to do

Improve Test Distribution — currently 8.6/10. — 28 test methods: 25 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 3 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 11 `it`/`test` case(s) across 2 test file(s) declaring at least one beside 10 .NET test method(s); its tier split is read from package names and paths only. The Python suite contributes 7 test function(s) across 7 file(s) declaring at least one — every `def test…` in a file pytest or unittest would collect, which is those frameworks' own definition of a case; a parametrize table counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is read from file names and paths only.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 skipped, 5 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 5 tests. Measured on the .swift suite only — at least 13 test source file(s) (.kt, .java, .py, .js) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

Assertions commented out: testExample · ×2ios/OpenBot/OpenBotTests/OpenBotTests.swift:22

Test project verifies nothing: OpenBotTests · ×2ios/OpenBot/OpenBotTests/OpenBotTests.swift:22

No assertions: testPerformanceExample · ×3ios/OpenBot/OpenBotTests/OpenBotTests.swift:30

What to do

Resolve the 3 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with OpenBotTests.swift, OpenBotUITests.swift, OpenBotUITestsLaunchTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Assertions commented out finding(s) in Test Quality — start with OpenBotTests.swift, OpenBotUITests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Test project verifies nothing finding(s) in Test Quality — start with OpenBotTests.swift, OpenBotUITests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 21 declared JVM dependency artifact(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from the POMs Maven Central publishes, over the coordinates this repository's 6 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) declare with a version resolvable from the manifest itself — the same declaration-site closure this analysis reads for dependency currency. The JVM has no lockfile a checkout is guaranteed to carry, so this is deliberately NOT the transitive closure. 11 further coordinate(s) are declared with no version at the declaration site — inherited from a parent POM, a BOM or an unresolved Gradle version reference — and are NOT graded: this verdict covers what the checkout pins, not the full transitive graph. A further 28 coordinate(s) are not published to Maven Central — another repository (Google's Maven hosts androidx), a SNAPSHOT, or a private artifact — so their licences are not readable from here and they are outside this verdict. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's JVM dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry) and package.json, and the licences of those dependency graphs were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

1 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java. Counted over 169 of the 356 production source files in this repository: 186 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 1 have no attributable history left to measure.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 9 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

9 deducted task-comment markers across 50700 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. 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 · ×8android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:484

FixmeCommentios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/GifLoader.swift:4

What to do

Resolve the 8 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SensorService.java (2), ArCore.java (2), ServerCommunication.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with GifLoader.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README gives a strong overview of OpenBot as the project and its three main tiers: the Android apps, the robot body, and firmware. The android/README, body/README, controller/README, firmware/README, ios/README, open-code/README, and policy/README each document their own directories (Android Apps, Robot Body, Bluetooth Controller, Firmware, iOS Apps - Beta Release, OpenBot Playground, Driving Policy) rather than the repository as a whole. The root README is complete with overview, installation, usage, contribution, and license; all other documents are directory-specific and well-structured for their audiences. The documentation is comprehensive and well-structured for a software project: the READMEs of each directory (e.g. controller/controller/, robot/, body/diy/, body/lite/, body/mtv/, body/rc_truck/, body/rtr/) describe their respective directories clearly with an overview, installation/build steps, usage examples, safety disclaimers, and future development notes for each document in the outline. The root README is judged separately (not shown). There are no missing-overview or missing-installation findings because every directory's README is self-contained; the only unshown sections were clipped by the scanner. The repository is well documented with READMEs for each directory (controller/python, controller/web-server, iOS app, custom PCB, MTV electronics) and an architecture/design docs set. Each README states what the directory does and provides installation/usage steps for its own tier; the root README covers overview, installation, usage, contributing, and license. The documentation is clear and complete with a strong architecture section on the control/cascaded MTV design.

Documentation: no contributor guidance · ×2README.md

What to do

Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)0.5 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

60 finding(s): 0 critical, 37 high, 20 medium, 3 low. 26 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. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `android/gradlew` (line 72, line 173) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 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

+ 11 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 6 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 26 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 (26 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (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.

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

89 finding(s): 15 critical, 47 high, 19 medium, 8 low.

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 46 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (42), REDACTED (3), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (46 issue-level).
Resolve the 14 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (14). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Critical vulnerability 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.

Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR LEAK scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset: personal data crossing a boundary it should not — reaching a log/console sink, a URL or query string, or unprotected browser storage. Matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. A clean sweep is unscored rather than an unearned 10, and is a statement about the leak paths checked only — this dimension does not inventory the personal data a repository holds (the personal-data map and the C1-C5 compliance cards do that), so it never reports that a repository has no personal-data surface. Reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive over the leak paths, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 2 medium, 0 low. semgrep could not parse 3 file(s) — `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/BottomSheet.swift`, `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift`, `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/GifLoader.swift` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d32_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

82 of 170 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift. Counted over 170 of the 356 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned knowledge · ×3ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift

Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

Resolve the 3 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with ExpandSetting.swift, PointGoalFragment.swift, ModelManagementTable.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

REDACTED

+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 4 platform declaration(s) and 73 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC1 · Text alternatives3.1 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: image/media elements — img, area, input[type=image], svg, video, object, embed, canvas — across the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and dynamic-attribute elements are skipped. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is NOT read by any producer, so it contributes no element to this population; where such a frontend is present the card discloses it as an analyzer gap rather than scoring around it.

An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. (×14) — controller/node-js/client/index.html:21, controller/node-js/client/index.html:40, controller/node-js/client/index.html:41, …

What to do

Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC2 · Forms & labels2.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id / name — and neither does anything it renders — so it likely renders an unlabelled control. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed. (×2) — open-code/src/components/blockly/fields/DateField.jsx:30, policy/frontend/src/pages/SessionPage.tsx:133
This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id / name, and nothing it renders carries one either. The text inside it does not stand in for one: these compound APIs render a trigger with role="combobox" (or role="button"), and those roles take their name from the AUTHOR, not from their content — so the words on screen never reach the accessibility tree as a name. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed. (×2) — policy/frontend/src/modals/DatasetModal.tsx:66, policy/frontend/src/modals/PublishModal.tsx:78

What to do

Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×2) — controller/node-js/client/index.html:2, controller/web-server/client/index.html:2
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="root">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it. (×2) — open-code/public/index.html:2, policy/frontend/public/index.html:2

What to do

Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC4 · Keyboard semantics1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".

The repo's own CSS styles .button with `cursor: pointer`, so this <img> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler. (×8) — controller/node-js/client/index.html:40, controller/node-js/client/index.html:41, controller/node-js/client/index.html:42, …

What to do

Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.

No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 28 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)5.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

208 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 5 of 12 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.8 pts.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability4.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 1/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `controller/flutter`, `controller/flutter/ios`, `controller/node-js/server`, `controller/python`, `ios/OpenBot`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (swift-otel with swift-distributed-tracing) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your Vapor/Hummingbird router) for operability.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 14245 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback2.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No release automation was found in CI — neither a deploy stage (Helm/Kubernetes/compose manifests, an orchestrated rollout) nor a publish job that ships the built artifact. Releases appear to be run by hand, which is slower, less repeatable and harder to reverse.

What to do

Automate the release in CI — a deploy stage for a service (Helm/Kubernetes manifests or an equivalent rollout), or a tag-triggered publish job for an artifact — so releases are repeatable and reversible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

`new OkHttpClient(` 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. 4 of the 4 files that make outbound calls are unbounded; the first 4 are listed. — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/PhoneController.java:139
`.openConnection(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. (×2) — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/DownloadFileTask.java:50, android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/ReadFileTask.java:30
`requests.get(` 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. — python/download_data.py:10

What to do

Set connect and read timeouts on every client (`RestTemplateBuilder.connectTimeout/readTimeout`, WebClient `responseTimeout`, `HttpRequest.Builder.timeout`, `HttpURLConnection.setReadTimeout`, Feign `connectTimeout`/`readTimeout` in configuration), and wrap calls to dependencies in resilience4j `@Retry`/`@CircuitBreaker`/`@TimeLimiter` (or Spring Retry).
Pass `timeout=` on every `requests`/`httpx` call (requests has no default and will wait forever), mount an `HTTPAdapter(max_retries=Retry(...))` on shared sessions, and wrap calls to flaky dependencies in `tenacity` retries or a `pybreaker` circuit breaker.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 87 use(s) across 50,161 production line(s) (~1.7/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Java: on hot paths, work through buffer views (ByteBuffer/LongBuffer slices, MemorySegment) instead of copies, avoid boxing with primitive collections (fastutil, Eclipse Collections, HPPC, Trove), presize collections and StringBuilders, and pool expensive buffers (Netty's pooled allocator, commons-pool).
Kotlin: on hot paths, use primitive arrays (IntArray, LongArray …) and @JvmInline value classes instead of boxed values, primitive collections (androidx.collection, fastutil) instead of boxed ones, and presize collections and StringBuilders.
Swift: on hot paths, reserveCapacity before appending, use ContiguousArray for class-element arrays, work in place with withUnsafeBufferPointer/withUnsafeTemporaryAllocation, and make large values ~Copyable with borrowing/consuming parameters.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R1 · Type Safety2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

27 typed · 80 plain JS — the untyped files are controller/node-js/client/bot-message-handler.js, controller/node-js/client/buttons.js, controller/node-js/client/connection.js, controller/node-js/client/error-display.js, controller/node-js/client/index.js, controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js (+74 more).

What to do

Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

8 duplicated blocks under open-code/src/components/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories bottomBar, drawer, editor, homeComponents, navBar — 5 of them are reported below, and 3 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 8 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 8 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 8 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:177
7 duplicated blocks under controller/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories node-js, web-server — 6 of them are reported below, and 1 is counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 7 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 7 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 7 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js:23
open-code/src/components/blockly/generator/javascriptGenerator.js:53 · open-code/src/components/blockly/generator/pythonGenerator.js:24 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 1517 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — open-code/src/components/blockly/generator/javascriptGenerator.js:53
controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js:23 · controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/keyboard.js:23 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js:23
controller/node-js/server/remote-keyboard.js:25 · controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/remote_keyboard.js:20 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 291 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — controller/node-js/server/remote-keyboard.js:25
controller/node-js/server/commands.js:11 · controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/commands.js:11 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 51 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — controller/node-js/server/commands.js:11
policy/frontend/src/modals/DatasetModal.tsx:20 · policy/frontend/src/modals/PublishModal.tsx:31 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 338 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — policy/frontend/src/modals/DatasetModal.tsx:20
open-code/src/utils/constants.js:23 · open-code/src/utils/constants.js:64 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — open-code/src/utils/constants.js:23
open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:164 · open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:203 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:164
open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:359 · open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:393 · open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:427 · open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:461 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:359
controller/node-js/client/buttons.js:10 · controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/buttons.js:10 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 209 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — controller/node-js/client/buttons.js:10
controller/node-js/client/bot-message-handler.js:14 · controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/bot-message-handler.js:14 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 123 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — controller/node-js/client/bot-message-handler.js:14
controller/node-js/client/webrtc.js:24 · controller/web-server/client/webRTC/webrtc.js:19 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 130 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — controller/node-js/client/webrtc.js:24
open-code/src/services/googleDrive.js:358 · open-code/src/services/googleDrive.js:386 — 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. — open-code/src/services/googleDrive.js:358
open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:177 · open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/editProfileModal.js:176 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:177
open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/generalBlocks.js:33 · open-code/src/components/blockly/toolbox/Toolbox.js:57 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/generalBlocks.js:33
open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js:164 · open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js:183 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js:164
open-code/src/components/blockly/toolbox/Toolbox.js:37 · open-code/src/components/blockly/toolbox/Toolbox.js:62 — 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. — open-code/src/components/blockly/toolbox/Toolbox.js:37
open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/headerComponents.js:265 · open-code/src/components/navBar/header.js:75 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 81 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/headerComponents.js:265
open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:42 · open-code/src/components/navBar/header.js:101 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:42
open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/headerComponents.js:265 · open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/profileOptionModal.js:58 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 80 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/headerComponents.js:265
open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:403 · open-code/src/components/editor/codeEditor.js:32 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:403
open-code/src/apis/models.js:14 · open-code/src/apis/projects.js:18 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — open-code/src/apis/models.js:14
open-code/src/components/blockly/index.js:27 · open-code/src/components/blockly/index.js:39 · open-code/src/components/blockly/index.js:51 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — open-code/src/components/blockly/index.js:27
open-code/src/components/drawer/drawer.js:26 · open-code/src/components/editor/codeEditor.js:28 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — open-code/src/components/drawer/drawer.js:26
open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/helpCenterModal.js:86 · open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/helpCenterModal.js:102 — 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. — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/helpCenterModal.js:86
controller/web-server/client/index.js:109 · controller/web-server/client/index.js:201 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 64 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — controller/web-server/client/index.js:109
controller/web-server/client/index.js:173 · open-code/src/App.js:69 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 62 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — controller/web-server/client/index.js:173
policy/frontend/src/pages/HomePage.tsx:12 · policy/frontend/src/pages/HomePage.tsx:21 — 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. — policy/frontend/src/pages/HomePage.tsx:12
policy/frontend/src/pages/ModelsPage.tsx:79 · policy/frontend/src/pages/TrainPage.tsx:62 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — policy/frontend/src/pages/ModelsPage.tsx:79
open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:459 · open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:469 · open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:480 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:459
open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:510 · open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:515 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:510

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R11 · Import Boundaries8.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

controller/node-js/test/commands.test.js:12 reaches past another workspace package's public entry into its internals with a relative path (../server/commands.js) — the test is coupled to a file layout that package makes no promise about, so a refactor behind its entry point breaks the suite. Import the package by name instead. — controller/node-js/test/commands.test.js:12

What to do

Fix the listed violations: import through public entries (package exports / slice index), never reach into another layer or package's internals.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

processKey has cyclomatic complexity 39 and cognitive complexity 65; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/remote_keyboard.js:19
processKey has cyclomatic complexity 29 and cognitive complexity 35; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — controller/node-js/server/remote-keyboard.js:24
RightDrawer has cyclomatic complexity 26 and cognitive complexity 25; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/drawer/drawer.js:22
ProfileOptionModal has cyclomatic complexity 26 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/profileOptionModal.js:22
generateCode has cyclomatic complexity 21 and cognitive complexity 49; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:96
UploadCodeButton has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 15; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:368
Card has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/myProjects/card.js:30
EditProfileModal has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/editProfileModal.js:22
RightSection has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 6; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/navBar/header.js:206
handle has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/bot-message-handler.js:19
BottomBar has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:30
CarousalComponent has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 8; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/carousel/carousel.js:33
clickedButton has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:215
CreateNewProjectModal has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/myProjects/newProjectButton.js:117

What to do

Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R3 · Large Files8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R4 · Test Coverage2.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×40) — open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js, open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js, open-code/src/services/googleDrive.js, …

What to do

Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).

Do you agree with this assessment?

R6 · Tooling6.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.

What to do

Add `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R7 · Dead Code9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×6) — controller/web-server/client/firebase/authentication.js:21, open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/generalBlocks.js:31, open-code/src/components/blockly/fields/DateField.jsx:39, …

What to do

Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R8 · Dependency Hygiene0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident. — policy/frontend/src/pages/ModelsPage.tsx:1
Declared in controller/node-js/server/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×3)
Only test files import it — move it to devDependencies. — policy/frontend/src/App.test.js:1

What to do

Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R9 · Circular Imports3.9 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

open-code/src/App.js → open-code/src/components/router/router.js → open-code/src/App.js (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 26 files) — open-code/src/App.js
open-code/src/apis/models.js → open-code/src/services/firebase.js → open-code/src/services/workspace.js → open-code/src/apis/models.js (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 5 files) — open-code/src/apis/models.js

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — markup this repository SHIPS is scored for third-party script integrity whether or not the repository serves it itself, since a page handed to a consumer runs in that consumer’s origin. Nothing else in this dimension was assessed: the transport, cookie, input-validation and crypto controls are read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository’s language, so their absence here is not a finding about this repository.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. Deterministic.

`https://accounts.google.com/gsi/client` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository. — controller/web-server/client/index.html:14

What to do

Pin third-party scripts and verify them: name an exact version in the URL and add an `integrity="sha384-…"` hash alongside `crossorigin="anonymous"` (both are required — an integrity hash on a cross-origin script without `crossorigin` is not evaluated, it blocks the script). Where the vendor ships a continuously-updated loader and publishes no stable hash (tag managers, analytics, chat widgets), Subresource Integrity is not available: constrain it instead with a `Content-Security-Policy` that names the exact origins allowed to execute, and drop the script from the pages that do not need it. Where the page is shipped inside a package that others host, prefer vendoring the asset and serving it from the app’s own origin, so no consumer inherits a third-party dependency they did not choose.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 15 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (27%; ≈30% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 40 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
AC1 · Text alternatives	1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5	Partial signal
AC2 · Forms & labels	1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure	1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics	2.1.1, 2.4.3	Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety	1.4.3, 2.4.7	Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcement	enforcement — no page criterion	Enforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 40 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	67%	Adequate — gated by R1	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	68%	Adequate — gated by D6, R9	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	70%	Strong	Solid.
Readiness	21%	Weak — gated by D10, R4, R8, P3, P4, P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	68%	Adequate — gated by D29, D30, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility	32%	Weak — gated by AC1, AC2, AC4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	82%	Strong	Strongest area.

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 — 69 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.

AC5 ARIA correctness — No ARIA usage found in the parsed markup — AC5 not applicable here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence 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.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not scored — polyglot repository, one half has no runner
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency Hygiene incomplete (time budget)
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. 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
D26 Project Cohesion — D26 measured no build unit over this repository's .dart, .ino, .java, .kt, .py, .ts, .tsx source. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — D27 reads resolved call sites in the languages it reads only — this repository's production source is .dart, .ino, .java, .kt, .py, .ts, .tsx, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
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 — D5 reads a .NET project-reference graph only — this repository's production source is .ino, .py, .swift, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (4 value object(s))
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, which this analysis does not build from source alone for this language. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`) 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 `Benchmark("…")` in a file importing package-benchmark, or package-benchmark in Package.swift, 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.
R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a yarn lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check 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 analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 131 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×46

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 21 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 1 more in this group — see findings.md.

AC1 · Text alternatives · <img> without a text alternative · ×14

<img> without a text alternative controller/node-js/client/index.html:21 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/node-js/client/index.html:40 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/node-js/client/index.html:41 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/node-js/client/index.html:42 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/node-js/client/index.html:43 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js:21 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js:22 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js:23 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js:24 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/web-server/client/index.html:22 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/keyboard.js:21 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/keyboard.js:22 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/keyboard.js:23 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.
<img> without a text alternative controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/keyboard.js:24 — An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×14

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AC4 · Keyboard semantics · Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable · ×8

Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable controller/node-js/client/index.html:40 — The repo's own CSS styles .button with `cursor: pointer`, so this <img> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.
Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable controller/node-js/client/index.html:41 — The repo's own CSS styles .button with `cursor: pointer`, so this <img> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.
Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable controller/node-js/client/index.html:42 — The repo's own CSS styles .button with `cursor: pointer`, so this <img> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.
Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable controller/node-js/client/index.html:43 — The repo's own CSS styles .button with `cursor: pointer`, so this <img> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.
Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable controller/web-server/client/index.html:46 — The repo's own CSS styles .button with `cursor: pointer`, so this <img> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.
Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable controller/web-server/client/index.html:47 — The repo's own CSS styles .button with `cursor: pointer`, so this <img> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.
Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable controller/web-server/client/index.html:48 — The repo's own CSS styles .button with `cursor: pointer`, so this <img> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.
Clickable element isn't keyboard-operable controller/web-server/client/index.html:49 — The repo's own CSS styles .button with `cursor: pointer`, so this <img> is a control — but it has no role, no tabindex="0" and no key handler, so it can only be reached with a mouse. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×3

Orphaned knowledge ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
Orphaned knowledge ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/PointGoalNavigation/PointGoalFragment.swift — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
Orphaned knowledge ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.

D10 · Test Quality · Assertions commented out · ×2

Assertions commented out: testExample ios/OpenBot/OpenBotTests/OpenBotTests.swift:22 — The test body contains commented-out assertion calls and no live one — it runs, verifies nothing, and still passes. Restore the assertions or delete the test; a green test that checks nothing is worse than an absent one.
Assertions commented out: testExample ios/OpenBot/OpenBotUITests/OpenBotUITests.swift:26 — The test body contains commented-out assertion calls and no live one — it runs, verifies nothing, and still passes. Restore the assertions or delete the test; a green test that checks nothing is worse than an absent one.

D10 · Test Quality · Test project verifies nothing · ×2

Test project verifies nothing: OpenBotTests ios/OpenBot/OpenBotTests/OpenBotTests.swift:22 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 2 of 2 tests in `OpenBotTests` — the project as a whole, not one method. 1 of them has its assertions commented out, so this suite did verify conventionally and was switched off — it is not an approval/verifier harness.
Test project verifies nothing: OpenBotUITests ios/OpenBot/OpenBotUITests/OpenBotUITests.swift:26 — No conventional assertion call was detected in 3 of 3 tests in `OpenBotUITests` — the project as a whole, not one method. 1 of them has its assertions commented out, so this suite did verify conventionally and was switched off — it is not an approval/verifier harness.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unlisted import 'date-fns' · ×1

Unlisted import 'date-fns' policy/frontend/src/pages/ModelsPage.tsx:1 — Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident.

R9 · Circular Imports · Import cycle (2 files) · ×1

Import cycle (2 files) open-code/src/App.js — open-code/src/App.js → open-code/src/components/router/router.js → open-code/src/App.js (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 26 files)

R9 · Circular Imports · Import cycle (3 files) · ×1

Import cycle (3 files) open-code/src/apis/models.js — open-code/src/apis/models.js → open-code/src/services/firebase.js → open-code/src/services/workspace.js → open-code/src/apis/models.js (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 5 files)

Serious — 571 finding(s)

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×43

Low cohesion: HomePageViewController (LCOM4 24) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/HomePage/HomePageViewController.swift:38 — HomePageViewController's methods fall into 24 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 24 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: runOpenBotThread (LCOM4 18) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:433 — runOpenBotThread's methods fall into 18 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 18 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: bluetoothDataController (LCOM4 13) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/BluetoothDataController.swift:10 — bluetoothDataController's methods fall into 13 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 13 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: popupWindowView (LCOM4 11) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/PopupWindowView.swift:11 — popupWindowView's methods fall into 11 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 11 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: WebRTCClient (LCOM4 11) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/WebRTC/WebRTCClient.swift:18 — WebRTCClient's methods fall into 11 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 11 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: expandedAutoPilot (LCOM4 10) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:9 — expandedAutoPilot'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: expandSetting (LCOM4 10) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:10 — expandSetting'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: FreeRoamController (LCOM4 10) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:11 — FreeRoamController'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: ModelManagementTable (LCOM4 10) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift:10 — ModelManagementTable'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: ObjectTrackingSettings (LCOM4 10) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:10 — ObjectTrackingSettings'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: PointGoalFragment (LCOM4 9) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/PointGoalNavigation/PointGoalFragment.swift:11 — PointGoalFragment's methods fall into 9 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 9 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: CameraController (LCOM4 8) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/CameraController.swift:9 — CameraController's methods fall into 8 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 8 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: Detector (LCOM4 8) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Detector.swift:10 — Detector's methods fall into 8 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 8 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: BottomSheet (LCOM4 8) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/BottomSheet.swift:9 — BottomSheet's methods fall into 8 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 8 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: scannerFragment (LCOM4 8) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/QrScanner/ScannerFragment.swift:12 — scannerFragment's methods fall into 8 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 8 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: WebRTCDelegates (LCOM4 8) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/WebRTC/WebRTCDelegates.swift:13 — WebRTCDelegates's methods fall into 8 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 8 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: DetectorFloatYoloV4 (LCOM4 7) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:8 — DetectorFloatYoloV4's methods fall into 7 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 7 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: DataCollectionController (LCOM4 7) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:12 — DataCollectionController's methods fall into 7 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 7 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: AppDelegate (LCOM4 6) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/AppDelegate.swift:9 — AppDelegate'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.
Low cohesion: SceneDelegate (LCOM4 6) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/SceneDelegate.swift:8 — SceneDelegate'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.
Low cohesion: DetectorFloatYoloV5 (LCOM4 6) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:8 — DetectorFloatYoloV5'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.
Low cohesion: Model (LCOM4 6) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Model.swift:67 — Model'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.
Low cohesion: BluetoothTable (LCOM4 6) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Bluetooth/BluetoothTable.swift:8 — BluetoothTable'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.
Low cohesion: GameViewController (LCOM4 6) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/GameView/GameViewController.swift:8 — GameViewController'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.
Low cohesion: projectFragment (LCOM4 6) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:11 — projectFragment'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.
+ 18 more in this group — see findings.md.

R4 · Test Coverage · No test reaches this file · ×40

No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/services/googleDrive.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/services/workspace.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/utils/constants.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/blockly/generator/javascriptGenerator.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/headerComponents.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/blockly/generator/pythonGenerator.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/navBar/header.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/blockly/BlocklyComponent.jsx — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/editProfileModal.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file controller/web-server/client/index.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/homeComponents/myProjects/card.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/homeComponents/myProjects/newProjectButton.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/App.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/profileOptionModal.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/keyboard.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/blockly/toolbox/Toolbox.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file open-code/src/components/drawer/drawer.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file controller/node-js/server/remote-keyboard.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file controller/web-server/server/server.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/commands.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
No test reaches this file controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/remote_keyboard.js — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
+ 15 more in this group — see findings.md.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×23

TooManyMethods: Vehicle android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/vehicle/Vehicle.java:18 — TooManyMethods — 87 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 57 over it, 2.90× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FreeRoamController ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:11 — TooManyMethods — 64 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 34 over it, 2.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: RobotInfoFrame ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/RobotInfoFrame.swift:8 — TooManyMethods — 57 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 27 over it, 1.90× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: BotFunctions android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BotFunctions.java:41 — TooManyMethods — 55 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 25 over it, 1.83× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: expandSetting ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:10 — TooManyMethods — 51 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 21 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.
TooManyMethods: runRobot ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:12 — TooManyMethods — 48 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 18 over it, 1.60× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: runOpenBotThread ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:433 — TooManyMethods — 45 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 15 over it, 1.50× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: projectFragment ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:11 — TooManyMethods — 44 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 14 over it, 1.47× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: PermissionUtils android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/utils/PermissionUtils.java:27 — TooManyMethods — 42 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 12 over it, 1.40× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ModelManagementTable ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift:10 — TooManyMethods — 40 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ObjectTrackingSettings ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:10 — TooManyMethods — 39 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 9 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.
TooManyMethods: SharedPreferencesManager android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/SharedPreferencesManager.java:14 — TooManyMethods — 37 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 7 over it, 1.23× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: expandedAutoPilot ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:9 — TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: SettingsFragment ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Settings/SettingsFragment.swift:12 — TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WebRtcServer android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/WebRtcServer.java:64 — TooManyMethods — 35 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ObjectNavFragment android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:51 — TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: AutopilotFragment android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:46 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ControlsFragment android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/common/ControlsFragment.java:47 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: bluetoothDataController ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/BluetoothDataController.swift:10 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WebRTCClient ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/WebRTC/WebRTCClient.swift:18 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: VideoViewWebRTC android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/VideoViewWebRTC.kt:37 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: HomePageViewController ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/HomePage/HomePageViewController.swift:38 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: PointGoalFragment ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/PointGoalNavigation/PointGoalFragment.swift:11 — TooManyMethods — 31 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 1 over it, 1.03× 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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×19

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×16

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:203 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:203-207 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:158-162 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:203` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:241 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:241-245 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:151-155 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:241` 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 (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:402 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:402-407 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:404-408 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:402` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:448 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:448-452 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:493-497 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:448` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:412 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:412-416 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:427-431 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:787 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:787-791 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Modes/VehicleControl.swift:299-303 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:787` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:364 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:364-368 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:409-413 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift:239 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift:239-243 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift:249-253 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift:239` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift:238` calls `move`, `CGPoint` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift:248` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:244 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:244-248 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:290-294 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:16 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:16-21 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift:14-18 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/HomePage/HomePageViewController.swift:285 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/HomePage/HomePageViewController.swift:285-289 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:236-240 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:160 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:160-164 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:163-167 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 55 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:160` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/HomePage/HomePageViewController.swift:59 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/HomePage/HomePageViewController.swift:59-63 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:59-63 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/InfoDialogFragment.java:41 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/InfoDialogFragment.java:41-45 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PermissionDialogFragment.java:35-39 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:163 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:163-167 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:218-222 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:163` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:106 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:106-110 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:184-188 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:106` 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.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×14

ClassTooLong: jsEvaluator ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:13 — ClassTooLong — 658 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 7 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 258 over it, 1.65× 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: runRobot ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:12 — ClassTooLong — 621 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 48 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 221 over it, 1.55× 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: FreeRoamController ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:11 — ClassTooLong — 556 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 64 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 156 over it, 1.39× 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: expandSetting ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:10 — ClassTooLong — 513 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 51 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 113 over it, 1.28× 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: ObjectTrackingSettings ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:10 — ClassTooLong — 476 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 39 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 76 over it, 1.19× 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: ObjectNavFragment android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:51 — ClassTooLong — 473 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 34 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 73 over it, 1.18× 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: LoggerFragment android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:57 — ClassTooLong — 470 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 30 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 70 over it, 1.18× 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: BotFunctions android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BotFunctions.java:41 — ClassTooLong — 466 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 55 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 66 over it, 1.17× 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: RobotInfoFrame ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/RobotInfoFrame.swift:8 — ClassTooLong — 458 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 57 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 58 over it, 1.15× 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: BlocklyExecutingFragment android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:63 — ClassTooLong — 423 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 27 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.06× 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: ControlsFragment android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/common/ControlsFragment.java:47 — ClassTooLong — 417 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 32 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 17 over it, 1.04× 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: AutopilotFragment android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:46 — ClassTooLong — 415 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 32 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.04× 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: expandedAutoPilot ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:9 — ClassTooLong — 412 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 36 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 12 over it, 1.03× 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: projectFragment ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:11 — ClassTooLong — 406 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 44 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.02× 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×14

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:119 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:119-125 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:141-147 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:119` 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 (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:47 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:47-53 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift:54-60 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:47` 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 (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Detector.swift:201 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Detector.swift:201-207 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Detector.swift:212-218 — 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.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Network.swift:63 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Network.swift:63-69 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Network.swift:81-87 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Network.swift:63` 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 (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:152 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:152-158 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:208-214 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:152` 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 (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:274 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:274-280 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:353-359 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:323 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:323-329 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:273-279 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:457 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:457-463 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:576-582 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:693 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:693-699 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:707-713 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:693` 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 (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:609 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:609-615 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:521-527 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/GameController.swift:251 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/GameController.swift:251-257 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/GameController.swift:267-273 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/GameController.swift:251` 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 (7 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/PopupWindowView.swift:157 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/PopupWindowView.swift:157-163 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/PopupWindowView.swift:196-202 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/GameController.java:149 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/GameController.java:149-155 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/GameController.java:174-180 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:324 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:324-330 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:397-403 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×11

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:346 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:346-354 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:376-384 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:346` 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 (9 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:510 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:510-518 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:471-479 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:523 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:523-531 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:482-490 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:370 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:370-378 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:442-450 — 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 × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:185 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:185-193 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:201-209 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:185` 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 (9 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/PopupWindowView.swift:168 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/PopupWindowView.swift:168-176 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/PopupWindowView.swift:207-215 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/PopupWindowView.swift:168` 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 (9 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/PointGoalNavigation/PointGoalFragment.swift:323 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/PointGoalNavigation/PointGoalFragment.swift:323-331 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:754-762 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/PointGoalNavigation/PointGoalFragment.swift:323` 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 (9 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:461 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:461-469 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:547-555 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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 (9 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:480 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:480-488 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:322-330 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:480` 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, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:478` calls `elapsedRealtime` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:321` 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 (9 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:294 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:294-302 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:367-375 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) policy/openbot/models.py:97 — policy/openbot/models.py:97-105 | policy/openbot/models.py:177-185 — 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 `policy/openbot/models.py:97` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×11

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:864 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:864-871 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:883-890 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:864` 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 (8 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:63 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:63-70 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:122-129 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Model.swift:179 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Model.swift:179-186 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Model.swift:197-204 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:336 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:336-343 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:286-293 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:336` 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 (8 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:248 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:248-255 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:261-268 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:248` 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 (8 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:45 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:45-52 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:155-162 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:45` 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 (8 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/RtspServer.java:57 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/RtspServer.java:57-64 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/WebRtcServer.java:99-106 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/WebRtcServer.java:108` calls `create`, `handleControllerWebRtcEvents` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/RtspServer.java:65` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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 (8 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:372 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:372-379 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/original/CameraActivity.java:1115-1122 — 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) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:523 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:523-530 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:594-601 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:490 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:490-497 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:562-569 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/vehicle/BluetoothManager.java:248 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/vehicle/BluetoothManager.java:248-255 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/vehicle/UsbConnection.java:171-178 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift:21 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift:21-30 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Navigation.swift:22-31 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Navigation.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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 (10 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:426 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:426-435 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Modes/VehicleControl.swift:127-136 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:426` 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 (10 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:125 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:125-134 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/WebRTC/WebRTCDelegates.swift:58-67 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/WebRTC/WebRTCClient.swift:78 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/WebRTC/WebRTCClient.swift:78-87 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/WebRTC/WebRTCClient.swift:106-115 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/WebRTC/WebRTCClient.swift:78` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:170 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:170-179 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:188-197 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 55 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Autopilot.java:87 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Autopilot.java:87-96 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Navigation.java:87-96 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Autopilot.java:87` 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:277 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:277-286 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:320-329 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:301 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:301-310 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:353-362 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:301` 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 (10 lines × 2) policy/openbot/callbacks.py:9 — policy/openbot/callbacks.py:9-18 | policy/openbot/callbacks.py:22-31 — 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 `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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) policy/openbot/callbacks.py:35 — policy/openbot/callbacks.py:35-44 | policy/openbot/callbacks.py:48-57 — 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 `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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×10

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:485 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:485-490 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:582-587 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:53 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:53-58 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:64-69 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:68 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:68-73 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:74-79 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:380 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:380-385 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:425-430 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:22 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:22-27 | REDACTED:21-26 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:165 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:165-170 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:221-226 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:165` 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) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:182 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:182-187 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:239-244 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:182` 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) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/QrScanner/ScannerFragment.swift:275 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/QrScanner/ScannerFragment.swift:275-280 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/UIViewExtension.swift:342-347 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:100 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:100-105 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:136-141 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:100` 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 (6 lines × 2) policy/openbot/utils.py:60 — policy/openbot/utils.py:60-65 | policy/openbot/utils.py:70-75 — 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 `policy/openbot/utils.py:60` 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.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×9

FunctionTooLong: bottomBar.BottomBar open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:30 — FunctionTooLong — BottomBar runs 243 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 143 over it, 2.43× 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.
FunctionTooLong: modelUploadingComponent.ModelUploadingComponent open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:21 — FunctionTooLong — ModelUploadingComponent runs 162 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 62 over it, 1.62× 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.
FunctionTooLong: editProfileModal.EditProfileModal open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/editProfileModal.js:22 — FunctionTooLong — EditProfileModal runs 161 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 61 over it, 1.61× 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.
FunctionTooLong: simpleInputComponent.SimpleInputComponent open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js:14 — FunctionTooLong — SimpleInputComponent runs 159 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 59 over it, 1.59× 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.
FunctionTooLong: BlocklyComponent.BlocklyComponent open-code/src/components/blockly/BlocklyComponent.jsx:27 — FunctionTooLong — BlocklyComponent runs 152 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 52 over it, 1.52× 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.
FunctionTooLong: Toolbox.Toolbox open-code/src/components/blockly/toolbox/Toolbox.js:15 — FunctionTooLong — Toolbox runs 119 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 19 over it, 1.19× 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.
FunctionTooLong: card.Card open-code/src/components/homeComponents/myProjects/card.js:30 — FunctionTooLong — Card runs 117 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 17 over it, 1.17× 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.
FunctionTooLong: App.App open-code/src/App.js:17 — FunctionTooLong — App runs 110 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 10 over it, 1.10× 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.
FunctionTooLong: bottomBar.UploadCodeButton open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:368 — FunctionTooLong — UploadCodeButton runs 104 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 4 over it, 1.04× 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 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×9

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:157 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:157-168 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:181-192 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:157` 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 (12 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:537 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:537-548 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/Common.swift:34-45 — 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 (12 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:38 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:38-49 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:47-58 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:38` 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 (12 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:89 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:89-100 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:569-580 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:89` 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) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:75 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:75-86 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:185-196 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:75` 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) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift:51 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift:51-62 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Navigation.swift:38-49 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Navigation.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/ImageUtils.java:106 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/ImageUtils.java:106-117 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java:212-223 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/ImageUtils.java:137 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/ImageUtils.java:137-148 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java:175-186 — 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 (12 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java:123 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java:123-134 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:683-694 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java:123` 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×8

TodoComment android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:484 — // TODO Auto-generated catch block — 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 android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:493 — // TODO Auto-generated catch block — 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 android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/ArCore.java:205 — // TODO: If needed, we could possibly implement some performance optimization 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 android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/ArCore.java:217 — // TODO: We could use another data structure here to avoid additional copying later. — 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 android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/server/ServerCommunication.java:125 — // TODO: Fix the commented code. — 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 controller/flutter/lib/screens/tiltingPhoneMode.dart:51 — // TODO: implement didUpdateWidget — 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 controller/flutter/lib/screens/component/onScreenIcon.dart:33 — // TODO: implement didUpdateWidget — 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 ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Detector.swift:225 — // TODO: return ObjectTrackingFragment.MINIMUM_CONFIDENCE_TF_OD_API — 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.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×8

MethodTooLong: jsEvaluator.evaluateJavaScript ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift:70 — MethodTooLong — evaluateJavaScript runs 248 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 148 over it, 2.48× 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: OnScreenIconState.build controller/flutter/lib/screens/component/onScreenIcon.dart:42 — MethodTooLong — build runs 169 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 69 over it, 1.69× 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: TiltingPhoneModeState.build controller/flutter/lib/screens/tiltingPhoneMode.dart:58 — MethodTooLong — build runs 140 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 40 over it, 1.40× 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: SettingsFragment.onCreatePreferences android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/main/SettingsFragment.java:85 — MethodTooLong — onCreatePreferences runs 122 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 22 over it, 1.22× 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: ObjectNavFragment.onViewCreated android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:108 — MethodTooLong — onViewCreated runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× 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: ControlsFragment.onViewCreated android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/common/ControlsFragment.java:77 — MethodTooLong — onViewCreated runs 103 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 3 over it, 1.03× 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: SensorService.onStartCommand android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:109 — MethodTooLong — onStartCommand runs 103 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 3 over it, 1.03× 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: SensorService.onSensorChanged android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:262 — MethodTooLong — onSensorChanged runs 102 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 2 over it, 1.02× 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.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×7

FileTooLong: JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/JsEvaluator/JsEvaluator.swift — FileTooLong — 662 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: jsEvaluator (13-1097). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 162 over it, 1.32× 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: runRobot/RunRobot.swift ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift — FileTooLong — 627 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: runRobot (12-1057). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 127 over it, 1.25× 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: FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift — FileTooLong — 565 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 98% of them inside a single declaration: FreeRoamController (11-806). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 65 over it, 1.13× 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: openbot/train.py policy/openbot/train.py — FileTooLong — 552 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 52 over it, 1.10× 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: logging/LoggerFragment.java android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java — FileTooLong — 523 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 90% of them inside a single declaration: LoggerFragment (57-699). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 23 over it, 1.05× 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: objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java — FileTooLong — 521 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 91% of them inside a single declaration: ObjectNavFragment (51-698). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 21 over it, 1.04× 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: DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift — FileTooLong — 516 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: expandSetting (10-697). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 16 over it, 1.03× 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.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×6

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×6

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift:315 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift:315-322 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Profile/EditProfileFragment.swift:375-382 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Profile/ProfileFragment.swift:230-237 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:428-439 — These 4 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 4 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 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:552 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:552-575 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:584-607 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:627-650 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:243-268 — These 4 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 4 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 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:577 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:577-595 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:609-627 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:652-670 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:270-288 — These 4 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 4 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 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:532 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:532-550 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:564-582 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:607-625 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:223-241 — These 4 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 4 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 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:297 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:297-352 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:359-403 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:405-454 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:540-590 — These 4 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 4 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 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) policy/openbot/models.py:79 — policy/openbot/models.py:79-113 | policy/openbot/models.py:117-155 | policy/openbot/models.py:159-196 | policy/openbot/models.py:200-236 — These 4 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 4 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 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:535 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:535-545 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:801-811 — 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 (11 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:830 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:830-840 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:862-872 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:830` 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 (11 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:197 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:197-207 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:258-268 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:269` calls `setDynamicSpeed`, `getDynamicSpeed` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:209` 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 (11 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:484 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:484-494 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/original/DefaultActivity.java:204-214 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:484` 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 (11 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java:343 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java:343-353 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BotFunctions.java:639-649 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java:343` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java:341` calls `showPermissionDialog` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BotFunctions.java:638` 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) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:229 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:229-239 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:292-302 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:305` calls `resetFpsUi` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:242` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×5

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:167 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:167-172 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:196-201 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:223-228 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift:143 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift:143-148 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/PopupWindowView.swift:168-173 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/PopupWindowView.swift:207-212 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:607 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:607-612 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:649-654 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:692-697 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) policy/openbot/models.py:108 — policy/openbot/models.py:108-113 | policy/openbot/models.py:149-155 | policy/openbot/models.py:188-196 — 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 `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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `policy/openbot/models.py:147` calls `Dropout` and `policy/openbot/models.py:106` 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 (6 lines × 3) policy/openbot/train.py:503 — policy/openbot/train.py:503-508 | policy/openbot/train.py:514-520 | policy/openbot/train.py:524-530 — 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 `policy/openbot/train.py:514` 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.

AC3 · Page structure · Page without a main landmark · ×4

Page without a main landmark controller/node-js/client/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark controller/web-server/client/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>.
Page without a main landmark open-code/public/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="root">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it.
Page without a main landmark policy/frontend/public/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="root">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:72 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:72-85 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:131-144 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:72` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:126 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:126-139 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:182-195 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:126` 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 (14 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:245 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:245-258 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:530-543 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:245` 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.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) policy/openbot/models.py:131 — policy/openbot/models.py:131-144 | policy/openbot/models.py:214-227 — 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 `policy/openbot/models.py:131` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `policy/openbot/models.py:145` calls `concatenate` and `policy/openbot/models.py:228` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×4

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/CameraController.swift:118 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/CameraController.swift:118-124 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Settings/SettingsFragment.swift:366-373 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Settings/SettingsFragment.swift:395-401 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/CameraController.swift:118` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Settings/SettingsFragment.swift:393` calls `addAction`, `UIAlertAction`, `toggleSwitchButtons` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/CameraController.swift:116` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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 (7 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:155 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:155-161 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:197-203 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:236-243 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:155` 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.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:157 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:157-163 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:217-223 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:275-281 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:157` 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.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:601 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:601-607 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:660-666 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:628-634 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience · ×4

Outbound HTTP without resilience android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/PhoneController.java:139 — `new OkHttpClient(` 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. 4 of the 4 files that make outbound calls are unbounded; the first 4 are listed.
Outbound HTTP without resilience android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/DownloadFileTask.java:50 — `.openConnection(` 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.
Outbound HTTP without resilience android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/ReadFileTask.java:30 — `.openConnection(` 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.
Outbound HTTP without resilience python/download_data.py:10 — `requests.get(` 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.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×3

No assertions: testPerformanceExample ios/OpenBot/OpenBotTests/OpenBotTests.swift:30 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testLaunchPerformance ios/OpenBot/OpenBotUITests/OpenBotUITests.swift:34 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
No assertions: testLaunch ios/OpenBot/OpenBotUITests/OpenBotUITestsLaunchTests.swift:21 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/CameraController.swift:77 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/CameraController.swift:77-91 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Network.swift:92-106 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/CameraController.swift:77` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/Common.swift:232 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/Common.swift:232-246 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/Common.swift:270-284 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:425 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:425-439 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:451-465 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:425` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:88 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:88-100 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:198-210 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:88` 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 (13 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:125 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:125-137 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:278-290 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:125` 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.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:279 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:279-291 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:352-364 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:279` 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.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) · ×3

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/apis/models.js:14 — open-code/src/apis/models.js:14 · open-code/src/apis/projects.js:18 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/drawer/drawer.js:26 — open-code/src/components/drawer/drawer.js:26 · open-code/src/components/editor/codeEditor.js:28 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/helpCenterModal.js:86 — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/helpCenterModal.js:86 · open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/helpCenterModal.js:102 — 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.

AC2 · Forms & labels · <RadioGroup> field component without a label · ×2

<RadioGroup> field component without a label policy/frontend/src/modals/DatasetModal.tsx:66 — This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id / name, and nothing it renders carries one either. The text inside it does not stand in for one: these compound APIs render a trigger with role="combobox" (or role="button"), and those roles take their name from the AUTHOR, not from their content — so the words on screen never reach the accessibility tree as a name. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed.
<RadioGroup> field component without a label policy/frontend/src/modals/PublishModal.tsx:78 — This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id / name, and nothing it renders carries one either. The text inside it does not stand in for one: these compound APIs render a trigger with role="combobox" (or role="button"), and those roles take their name from the AUTHOR, not from their content — so the words on screen never reach the accessibility tree as a name. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RemoteKeyboard · ×2

RemoteKeyboard::processKey (cyclomatic 39) controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/remote_keyboard.js:19 — RemoteKeyboard::processKey has cyclomatic complexity 39 (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.
RemoteKeyboard::processKey (cyclomatic 29) controller/node-js/server/remote-keyboard.js:24 — RemoteKeyboard::processKey has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RemoteKeyboard · ×2

RemoteKeyboard::processKey (cognitive 65) controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/remote_keyboard.js:19 — RemoteKeyboard::processKey has cognitive complexity 65 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (62 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 39). 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.
RemoteKeyboard::processKey (cognitive 35) controller/node-js/server/remote-keyboard.js:24 — RemoteKeyboard::processKey has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (32 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 19). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BottomBar · ×2

BottomBar::generateCode (cognitive 49) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:96 — BottomBar::generateCode has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (32 pts), loops 3 (11 pts), error handling 1 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 28). 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.
BottomBar::handlingMultipleAIBlocks (cognitive 22) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:67 — BottomBar::handlingMultipleAIBlocks has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (18 pts), loops 1 (4 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.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2

Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:250 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:250-290 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:394-432 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:714-743 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:413-453 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:35-100 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:148-210 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:103 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:103-134 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:143-178 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:181-210 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:123-184 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:193-258 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:261-320 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:100 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:100-119 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:253-272 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:299-318 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:100` 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 (20 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:119 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:119-138 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/modelManagement/ModelManagementFragment.java:75-94 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/modelManagement/ModelManagementFragment.java:248-267 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:119` 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.

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

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:222 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:222-241 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:507-526 — 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 (20 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/PointGoalNavigation/PointGoalFragment.swift:428 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/PointGoalNavigation/PointGoalFragment.swift:428-447 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:940-959 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–18 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (16–18 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:124 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:124-141 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:166-183 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:208-223 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:124` 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 (16–18 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:353 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:353-370 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:529-544 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:337-353 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:353` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:24 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:24-40 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift:21-36 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:24` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift:91 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift:91-107 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Navigation.swift:78-93 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Navigation.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Autopilot.swift:91` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) · ×2

Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:104 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:104-119 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:140-155 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:257-272 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:303-318 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:553 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:553-568 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:585-600 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:628-643 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:244-259 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:553` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `controlMode` to `Enums.ControlMode` in one and `ControlMode` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

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

Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:64 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:64-78 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift:75-88 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:64` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:61` calls `post` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift:71` 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 (14–15 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/WebRtcServer.java:260 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/WebRtcServer.java:260-273 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/WebRtcServer.java:308-322 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:335 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:335-344 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:520-529 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:557-566 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:334` calls `addGestureRecognizer` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:519` 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 (10 lines × 3) policy/openbot/models.py:95 — policy/openbot/models.py:95-104 | policy/openbot/models.py:134-143 | policy/openbot/models.py:217-226 — 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 `policy/openbot/models.py:95` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `policy/openbot/models.py:144` calls `Dropout` and `policy/openbot/models.py:105` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:414 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:414-422 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:370-378 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:415-423 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java:109 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java:109-117 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:83-91 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:104-112 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:170 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:170-184 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:154-168 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:225-239 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:112 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:112-126 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:154-168 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:190-204 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:112` 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 after the matched lines, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:129` calls `get`, `contentEquals` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:207` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java:137 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java:137-148 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java:168-179 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java:195-206 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java:137` 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 after the matched lines, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java:149` calls `get`, `contentEquals` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorDefault.java:207` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 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 (12 lines × 3) policy/openbot/models.py:83 — policy/openbot/models.py:83-94 | policy/openbot/models.py:121-132 | policy/openbot/models.py:163-174 — 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 `policy/openbot/models.py:83` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:402 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:402-410 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:434-443 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:597 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:597-606 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:645-653 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:597` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:174 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:174-182 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:158-166 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:229-237 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:93-101 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:174` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:480 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:480-488 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:639-647 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:682-690 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:300-308 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:598 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:598-605 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:630-637 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:673-680 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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 (8 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:482 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:482-489 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/original/DefaultActivity.java:202-209 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:324-331 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:482` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:478` calls `elapsedRealtime` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:321` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:305 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:305-315 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:287-297 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:378-388 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) policy/openbot/models.py:79 — policy/openbot/models.py:79-89 | policy/openbot/models.py:117-127 | policy/openbot/models.py:200-210 — 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 `policy/openbot/models.py:79` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

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

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) policy/openbot/dataloader.py:61 — policy/openbot/dataloader.py:61-76 | policy/openbot/tfrecord.py:62-77 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) policy/openbot/train.py:544 — policy/openbot/train.py:544-559 | policy/openbot/train.py:560-575 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (9 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block with local edits (9 matched lines × 2 locations) controller/web-server/client/index.js:109 — controller/web-server/client/index.js:109 · controller/web-server/client/index.js:201 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 64 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
Duplicated block with local edits (9 matched lines × 2 locations) controller/web-server/client/index.js:173 — controller/web-server/client/index.js:173 · open-code/src/App.js:69 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 62 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

AC2 · Forms & labels · <DatePicker> field component without a label · ×1

<DatePicker> field component without a label open-code/src/components/blockly/fields/DateField.jsx:30 — This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id / name — and neither does anything it renders — so it likely renders an unlabelled control. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed.

AC2 · Forms & labels · <Slider> field component without a label · ×1

<Slider> field component without a label policy/frontend/src/pages/SessionPage.tsx:133 — This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id / name — and neither does anything it renders — so it likely renders an unlabelled control. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed.

AC7 · A11y enforcement · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1

Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 28 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · bottomBar.BottomBar (cyclomatic 58) · ×1

bottomBar.BottomBar (cyclomatic 58) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:30 — bottomBar.BottomBar has cyclomatic complexity 58 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 38 belong to 6 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ProfileOptionModal (cyclomatic 34) · ×1

ProfileOptionModal (cyclomatic 34) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/profileOptionModal.js:22 — ProfileOptionModal has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). Of this number, 26 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 13 function items inside it that branch. 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CommandHandler.handle_keys (cyclomatic 33) · ×1

CommandHandler.handle_keys (cyclomatic 33) controller/python/keyboard-pygame.py:59 — CommandHandler.handle_keys has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BlocklyComponent.BlocklyComponent (cyclomatic 32) · ×1

BlocklyComponent.BlocklyComponent (cyclomatic 32) open-code/src/components/blockly/BlocklyComponent.jsx:27 — BlocklyComponent.BlocklyComponent has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 3 of the 32 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 9 function literals inside it that branch (lines 94, 157, 132, …). 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EditProfileModal (cyclomatic 28) · ×1

EditProfileModal (cyclomatic 28) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/editProfileModal.js:22 — EditProfileModal has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 13 belong to 19 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · associate_frames.match_frame_session (cyclomatic 27) · ×1

associate_frames.match_frame_session (cyclomatic 27) policy/openbot/associate_frames.py:130 — associate_frames.match_frame_session has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RightDrawer (cyclomatic 26) · ×1

RightDrawer (cyclomatic 26) open-code/src/components/drawer/drawer.js:22 — RightDrawer has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SensorService.onStartCommand (cyclomatic 24) · ×1

SensorService.onStartCommand (cyclomatic 24) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:109 — SensorService.onStartCommand 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · simpleInputComponent.SimpleInputComponent (cyclomatic 24) · ×1

simpleInputComponent.SimpleInputComponent (cyclomatic 24) open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js:14 — simpleInputComponent.SimpleInputComponent has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 2 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Card (cyclomatic 24) · ×1

Card (cyclomatic 24) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/myProjects/card.js:30 — Card has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 21 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ControlsFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

ControlsFragment.onViewCreated (cyclomatic 23) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/common/ControlsFragment.java:77 — ControlsFragment.onViewCreated has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · OnScreenIconState.build (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

OnScreenIconState.build (cyclomatic 23) controller/flutter/lib/screens/component/onScreenIcon.dart:42 — OnScreenIconState.build has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · bottomBar.UploadCodeButton (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

bottomBar.UploadCodeButton (cyclomatic 23) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:368 — bottomBar.UploadCodeButton has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 3 function literals 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ControllerMappingFragment.processKeyEvent (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

ControllerMappingFragment.processKeyEvent (cyclomatic 22) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/controller/ControllerMappingFragment.java:95 — ControllerMappingFragment.processKeyEvent has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CVPixelBuffer.resized (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

CVPixelBuffer.resized (cyclomatic 21) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/BlueDress/CVPixelBuffer+.swift:17 — CVPixelBuffer.resized has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BottomBar · ×1

BottomBar::generateCode (cyclomatic 21) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:96 — BottomBar::generateCode has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SensorService.onDestroy (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

SensorService.onDestroy (cyclomatic 20) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:442 — SensorService.onDestroy has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SettingsFragment.onCreatePreferences (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

SettingsFragment.onCreatePreferences (cyclomatic 20) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/main/SettingsFragment.java:85 — SettingsFragment.onCreatePreferences has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GameController.processControllerKeyData (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

GameController.processControllerKeyData (cyclomatic 19) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/GameController.swift:164 — GameController.processControllerKeyData has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · runRobot.display (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

runRobot.display (cyclomatic 19) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:653 — runRobot.display has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · GameController.processButtonInput (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

GameController.processButtonInput (cyclomatic 19) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/GameController.java:51 — GameController.processButtonInput has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · App (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

App (cyclomatic 19) open-code/src/App.js:17 — App has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 19 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 20 function items inside it that branch (getCookie, (anonymous), (anonymous)::(anonymous), …). 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ServerWebrtcDelegate.didReceiveData (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

ServerWebrtcDelegate.didReceiveData (cyclomatic 18) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:35 — ServerWebrtcDelegate.didReceiveData 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ServerWebrtcDelegate.websocketDidReceiveMessage) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ServerWebrtcDelegate.websocketDidReceiveMessage (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

ServerWebrtcDelegate.websocketDidReceiveMessage (cyclomatic 18) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:148 — ServerWebrtcDelegate.websocketDidReceiveMessage 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. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ServerWebrtcDelegate.didReceiveData) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SensorMessageHandler.handleMessage (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

SensorMessageHandler.handleMessage (cyclomatic 18) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:401 — SensorMessageHandler.handleMessage 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RightSection (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

RightSection (cyclomatic 18) open-code/src/components/navBar/header.js:206 — RightSection has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 5 function literals inside it that branch. 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · NsdService.start (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

NsdService.start (cyclomatic 17) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift:21 — NsdService.start has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SettingsFragment.toggleSwitchButtons (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

SettingsFragment.toggleSwitchButtons (cyclomatic 17) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Settings/SettingsFragment.swift:404 — SettingsFragment.toggleSwitchButtons has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · runRobot.runMultipleObjectTracking (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

runRobot.runMultipleObjectTracking (cyclomatic 17) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:859 — runRobot.runMultipleObjectTracking has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ArCore.onDrawFrame (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

ArCore.onDrawFrame (cyclomatic 17) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/ArCore.java:129 — ArCore.onDrawFrame has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ModelUploadingComponent (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

ModelUploadingComponent (cyclomatic 16) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:21 — ModelUploadingComponent has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 8 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 17 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×1

FixmeComment ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/GifLoader.swift:4 — // FIXME: comparison operators with optionals were removed from the Swift Standard Library. — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · bottomBar.BottomBar (cognitive 97) · ×1

bottomBar.BottomBar (cognitive 97) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:30 — bottomBar.BottomBar has cognitive complexity 97 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 29 (64 pts), loops 4 (15 pts), boolean chains 11, ternaries 6, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 46). Of this number, 30 points are the body's own statements and 67 belong to 6 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · simpleInputComponent.SimpleInputComponent (cognitive 85) · ×1

simpleInputComponent.SimpleInputComponent (cognitive 85) open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js:14 — simpleInputComponent.SimpleInputComponent has cognitive complexity 85 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 20 (82 pts), if/else 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 63). Of this number, 78 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CommandHandler.handle_keys (cognitive 80) · ×1

CommandHandler.handle_keys (cognitive 80) controller/python/keyboard-pygame.py:59 — CommandHandler.handle_keys has cognitive complexity 80 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (77 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 57). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SensorMessageHandler.handleMessage (cognitive 63) · ×1

SensorMessageHandler.handleMessage (cognitive 63) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:401 — SensorMessageHandler.handleMessage has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (63 pts) (nesting depth added 45). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · associate_frames.match_frame_session (cognitive 50) · ×1

associate_frames.match_frame_session (cognitive 50) policy/openbot/associate_frames.py:130 — associate_frames.match_frame_session has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 20 (38 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 3 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 21). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BlocklyComponent.BlocklyComponent (cognitive 47) · ×1

BlocklyComponent.BlocklyComponent (cognitive 47) open-code/src/components/blockly/BlocklyComponent.jsx:27 — BlocklyComponent.BlocklyComponent has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (33 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 4, ternaries 3, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 13). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 47 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 9 function literals inside it that branch (lines 157, 94, 132, …). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · runRobot.runMultipleObjectTracking (cognitive 46) · ×1

runRobot.runMultipleObjectTracking (cognitive 46) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:859 — runRobot.runMultipleObjectTracking has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (31 pts), loops 2 (11 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 26). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BlocklyExecutingFragment.followMultipleObject (cognitive 39) · ×1

BlocklyExecutingFragment.followMultipleObject (cognitive 39) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:359 — BlocklyExecutingFragment.followMultipleObject has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (35 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditProfileModal (cognitive 35) · ×1

EditProfileModal (cognitive 35) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/editProfileModal.js:22 — EditProfileModal has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 11, error handling 3 (8 pts), ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 10). Most of this is not in the body itself: 10 of the 35 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 19 function items inside it that branch (handleSubmit, handleCompressFile, handleNameChange, …). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GoogleServices.accessDriveFiles (cognitive 34) · ×1

GoogleServices.accessDriveFiles (cognitive 34) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:221 — GoogleServices.accessDriveFiles has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (19 pts), loops 5 (13 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CVPixelBuffer.resized (cognitive 32) · ×1

CVPixelBuffer.resized (cognitive 32) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/BlueDress/CVPixelBuffer+.swift:17 — CVPixelBuffer.resized has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (27 pts), boolean chains 5 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · OnScreenIconState.build (cognitive 32) · ×1

OnScreenIconState.build (cognitive 32) controller/flutter/lib/screens/component/onScreenIcon.dart:42 — OnScreenIconState.build has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (17 pts), ternaries 14, 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · runRobot.runDetection (cognitive 31) · ×1

runRobot.runDetection (cognitive 31) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:1010 — runRobot.runDetection has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (27 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProfileOptionModal (cognitive 31) · ×1

ProfileOptionModal (cognitive 31) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/profileOptionModal.js:22 — ProfileOptionModal has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 9, ternaries 8, if/else 6 (7 pts), error handling 2 (5 pts), other 2 (nesting depth added 4). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 15 belong to 13 function items inside it that branch. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Authentication.googleSignInFunc (cognitive 29) · ×1

Authentication.googleSignInFunc (cognitive 29) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:42 — Authentication.googleSignInFunc has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (24 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CameraController.initializeCamera (cognitive 29) · ×1

CameraController.initializeCamera (cognitive 29) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/CameraController.swift:127 — CameraController.initializeCamera has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (24 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ObjectNavFragment.processFrame (cognitive 29) · ×1

ObjectNavFragment.processFrame (cognitive 29) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:450 — ObjectNavFragment.processFrame has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (25 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BlocklyExecutingFragment.onDetection (cognitive 29) · ×1

BlocklyExecutingFragment.onDetection (cognitive 29) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:405 — BlocklyExecutingFragment.onDetection has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (21 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · NsdService.start (cognitive 28) · ×1

NsdService.start (cognitive 28) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift:21 — NsdService.start has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (20 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), loops 2 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GoogleServices.createAndUploadJsonFile (cognitive 28) · ×1

GoogleServices.createAndUploadJsonFile (cognitive 28) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:501 — GoogleServices.createAndUploadJsonFile has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (19 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · App (cognitive 28) · ×1

App (cognitive 28) open-code/src/App.js:17 — App has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (17 pts), error handling 2 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), ternaries 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 28 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 20 function items inside it that branch ((anonymous)::(anonymous), getCookie, (anonymous), …). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Utils.getIPAddress (cognitive 27) · ×1

Utils.getIPAddress (cognitive 27) android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/utils/Utils.kt:41 — Utils.getIPAddress has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (23 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CommandHandler.handle_keys (cognitive 27) · ×1

CommandHandler.handle_keys (cognitive 27) controller/python/keyboard-click.py:34 — CommandHandler.handle_keys has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (26 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Authentication.getIdOfDriveFile (cognitive 26) · ×1

Authentication.getIdOfDriveFile (cognitive 26) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:347 — Authentication.getIdOfDriveFile has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (21 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ObjectTrackingFragment.captureOutput (cognitive 26) · ×1

ObjectTrackingFragment.captureOutput (cognitive 26) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:328 — ObjectTrackingFragment.captureOutput has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (20 pts), loops 2 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FileDownloader.loadFileAsync (cognitive 25) · ×1

FileDownloader.loadFileAsync (cognitive 25) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/FileDownloader.swift:46 — FileDownloader.loadFileAsync has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (25 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Network.init (cognitive 25) · ×1

Network.init (cognitive 25) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Network.swift:39 — Network.init has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (17 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GoogleServices.getConfigFileContent (cognitive 25) · ×1

GoogleServices.getConfigFileContent (cognitive 25) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:666 — GoogleServices.getConfigFileContent has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (13 pts), loops 3 (9 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DetectorYoloV5.getMultipleRecognitions (cognitive 25) · ×1

DetectorYoloV5.getMultipleRecognitions (cognitive 25) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:193 — DetectorYoloV5.getMultipleRecognitions has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 6 (10 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RightDrawer (cognitive 25) · ×1

RightDrawer (cognitive 25) open-code/src/components/drawer/drawer.js:22 — RightDrawer has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 23, boolean chains 2. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DetectorFloatYoloV5.getMultipleRecognitions (cognitive 24) · ×1

DetectorFloatYoloV5.getMultipleRecognitions (cognitive 24) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:166 — DetectorFloatYoloV5.getMultipleRecognitions has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), loops 6 (10 pts), boolean chains 2 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SensorService.onStartCommand (cognitive 24) · ×1

SensorService.onStartCommand (cognitive 24) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:109 — SensorService.onStartCommand has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 10. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SettingsFragment.onCreatePreferences (cognitive 24) · ×1

SettingsFragment.onCreatePreferences (cognitive 24) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/main/SettingsFragment.java:85 — SettingsFragment.onCreatePreferences has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23, boolean chains 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DetectorFloatYoloV5.getRecognitions (cognitive 23) · ×1

DetectorFloatYoloV5.getRecognitions (cognitive 23) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:105 — DetectorFloatYoloV5.getRecognitions has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), loops 6 (10 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConnectionMonitor.getIPAddress (cognitive 23) · ×1

ConnectionMonitor.getIPAddress (cognitive 23) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/ConnectionMonitor.java:81 — ConnectionMonitor.getIPAddress has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (13 pts), ternaries 1 (6 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConnectionUtils.getIPAddress (cognitive 23) · ×1

ConnectionUtils.getIPAddress (cognitive 23) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/utils/ConnectionUtils.java:83 — ConnectionUtils.getIPAddress has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (13 pts), ternaries 1 (6 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ArCore.onDrawFrame (cognitive 23) · ×1

ArCore.onDrawFrame (cognitive 23) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/ArCore.java:129 — ArCore.onDrawFrame has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (18 pts), error handling 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DetectorYoloV5.getRecognitions (cognitive 23) · ×1

DetectorYoloV5.getRecognitions (cognitive 23) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:123 — DetectorYoloV5.getRecognitions has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), loops 6 (10 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ModelUploadingComponent (cognitive 23) · ×1

ModelUploadingComponent (cognitive 23) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:21 — ModelUploadingComponent has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (7 pts), boolean chains 6, error handling 2 (6 pts), ternaries 3, other 1 (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 7 of the 23 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 17 function items inside it that branch (handleSubmit, handleTypeChange, handleTfliteNameChange, …). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ServerCommunication.downloadFile (cognitive 22) · ×1

ServerCommunication.downloadFile (cognitive 22) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:121 — ServerCommunication.downloadFile has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (22 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DetectorFloatYoloV5.getAllRecognitions (cognitive 22) · ×1

DetectorFloatYoloV5.getAllRecognitions (cognitive 22) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:225 — DetectorFloatYoloV5.getAllRecognitions has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), loops 6 (10 pts) (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · scannerFragment.metadataOutput (cognitive 22) · ×1

scannerFragment.metadataOutput (cognitive 22) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/QrScanner/ScannerFragment.swift:134 — scannerFragment.metadataOutput has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (17 pts), error handling 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Connection.receiveMessage (cognitive 22) · ×1

Connection.receiveMessage (cognitive 22) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Connection.swift:74 — Connection.receiveMessage has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (19 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MultiBoxTracker.updateTarget (cognitive 22) · ×1

MultiBoxTracker.updateTarget (cognitive 22) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tracking/MultiBoxTracker.java:154 — MultiBoxTracker.updateTarget has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), ternaries 6 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 9). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · dataloader.load_labels (cognitive 22) · ×1

dataloader.load_labels (cognitive 22) policy/openbot/dataloader.py:40 — dataloader.load_labels has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (18 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Card (cognitive 22) · ×1

Card (cognitive 22) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/myProjects/card.js:30 — Card has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 10, boolean chains 5, if/else 4, error handling 2, other 1. Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 21 function items inside it that branch. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ControlsFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 21) · ×1

ControlsFragment.onViewCreated (cognitive 21) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/common/ControlsFragment.java:77 — ControlsFragment.onViewCreated has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ControllerMappingFragment.processKeyEvent (cognitive 21) · ×1

ControllerMappingFragment.processKeyEvent (cognitive 21) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/controller/ControllerMappingFragment.java:95 — ControllerMappingFragment.processKeyEvent has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (20 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 10). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ControllerState.processMessageFromBot (cognitive 21) · ×1

ControllerState.processMessageFromBot (cognitive 21) controller/flutter/lib/screens/controller.dart:316 — ControllerState.processMessageFromBot has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (21 pts) (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GameController.processControllerKeyData (cognitive 20) · ×1

GameController.processControllerKeyData (cognitive 20) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/GameController.swift:164 — GameController.processControllerKeyData has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (19 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DataCollectionController.captureOutput (cognitive 20) · ×1

DataCollectionController.captureOutput (cognitive 20) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:209 — DataCollectionController.captureOutput has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (15 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · projectFragment.loadProjects (cognitive 20) · ×1

projectFragment.loadProjects (cognitive 20) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:381 — projectFragment.loadProjects has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (17 pts), loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · bottomBar.UploadCodeButton (cognitive 20) · ×1

bottomBar.UploadCodeButton (cognitive 20) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:368 — bottomBar.UploadCodeButton has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 14, boolean chains 4, if/else 2. Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Browser.start (cognitive 19) · ×1

Browser.start (cognitive 19) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:24 — Browser.start has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SensorService.onDestroy (cognitive 19) · ×1

SensorService.onDestroy (cognitive 19) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/SensorService.java:442 — SensorService.onDestroy has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DetectorYoloV5.getAllRecognition (cognitive 19) · ×1

DetectorYoloV5.getAllRecognition (cognitive 19) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:261 — DetectorYoloV5.getAllRecognition has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 6 (10 pts), if/else 4 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 9). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ControllerState.registerNewService (cognitive 19) · ×1

ControllerState.registerNewService (cognitive 19) controller/flutter/lib/screens/controller.dart:168 — ControllerState.registerNewService has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), error handling 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · workspace.renameProject (cognitive 19) · ×1

workspace.renameProject (cognitive 19) open-code/src/services/workspace.js:263 — workspace.renameProject has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), boolean chains 1 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DetectorFloatYoloV4.getMultipleRecognitions (cognitive 18) · ×1

DetectorFloatYoloV4.getMultipleRecognitions (cognitive 18) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:163 — DetectorFloatYoloV4.getMultipleRecognitions has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (8 pts), loops 4 (8 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FreeRoamController.viewDidLoad (cognitive 18) · ×1

FreeRoamController.viewDidLoad (cognitive 18) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:36 — FreeRoamController.viewDidLoad has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (17 pts), boolean chains 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LoggerFragment.processFrame (cognitive 18) · ×1

LoggerFragment.processFrame (cognitive 18) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:659 — LoggerFragment.processFrame has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · 1.onReceive (cognitive 18) · ×1

1.onReceive (cognitive 18) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/main/MainActivity.java:69 — 1.onReceive has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Detector.multipleNMS (cognitive 18) · ×1

Detector.multipleNMS (cognitive 18) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:316 — Detector.multipleNMS has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (9 pts), loops 5 (9 pts) (nesting depth added 10). This file's own header attributes it to another copyright holder, so it is code this repository carries rather than code it wrote: restructuring the body in place forks it from upstream and turns every future re-sync into a manual merge. The performable moves are to leave the body as close to its upstream form as possible and keep it behind a narrow interface of your own, and to re-sync it when upstream changes — or, if it has already diverged far enough that you maintain it here, adopt it deliberately and then split the body into named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Common.loadSelectedModels (cognitive 17) · ×1

Common.loadSelectedModels (cognitive 17) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/Common.swift:75 — Common.loadSelectedModels has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DetectorFloatYoloV4.getRecognitions (cognitive 17) · ×1

DetectorFloatYoloV4.getRecognitions (cognitive 17) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:121 — DetectorFloatYoloV4.getRecognitions has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (8 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · expandedAutoPilot.init (cognitive 17) · ×1

expandedAutoPilot.init (cognitive 17) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:36 — expandedAutoPilot.init has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), loops 1 (3 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GameController.processJoystickInput (cognitive 17) · ×1

GameController.processJoystickInput (cognitive 17) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/GameController.java:126 — GameController.processJoystickInput has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BlocklyExecutingFragment.startFollowObject (cognitive 17) · ×1

BlocklyExecutingFragment.startFollowObject (cognitive 17) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:297 — BlocklyExecutingFragment.startFollowObject has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · tfrecord.load_labels (cognitive 17) · ×1

tfrecord.load_labels (cognitive 17) policy/openbot/tfrecord.py:37 — tfrecord.load_labels has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 2 (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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DetectorFloatYoloV4.getAllRecognitions (cognitive 16) · ×1

DetectorFloatYoloV4.getAllRecognitions (cognitive 16) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:205 — DetectorFloatYoloV4.getAllRecognitions has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (8 pts), loops 4 (8 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ServerWebrtcDelegate.didReceiveData (cognitive 16) · ×1

ServerWebrtcDelegate.didReceiveData (cognitive 16) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:35 — ServerWebrtcDelegate.didReceiveData has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (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 shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ServerWebrtcDelegate.websocketDidReceiveMessage) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ServerWebrtcDelegate.websocketDidReceiveMessage (cognitive 16) · ×1

ServerWebrtcDelegate.websocketDidReceiveMessage (cognitive 16) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:148 — ServerWebrtcDelegate.websocketDidReceiveMessage has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (12 pts), error handling 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (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 shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (ServerWebrtcDelegate.didReceiveData) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · runRobot.runObjectTracking (cognitive 16) · ×1

runRobot.runObjectTracking (cognitive 16) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:827 — runRobot.runObjectTracking has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), loops 1 (3 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BlocklyExecutingFragment.startMultipleAi (cognitive 16) · ×1

BlocklyExecutingFragment.startMultipleAi (cognitive 16) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:540 — BlocklyExecutingFragment.startMultipleAi has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · utils.compare_tf_tflite (cognitive 16) · ×1

utils.compare_tf_tflite (cognitive 16) policy/openbot/utils.py:141 — utils.compare_tf_tflite has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), 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.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 9 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member family (3 members, 9 shared lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:402 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:402-445 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:359-401 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:404-446 — These 3 members are variants of one another: a block of 9 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 3 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 3 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (118 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (118 shared lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:17 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:17-167 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:176-329 — These two members are variants of one another: 118 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (37 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (37 shared lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift:21 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/NsdService.swift:21-88 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Data/Server/Browser.swift:24-78 — These two members are variants of one another: 37 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (24 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (24 shared lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:36 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:36-114 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:41-135 — These two members are variants of one another: 24 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (18 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (18 corresponding lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:787 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:787-804 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Modes/VehicleControl.swift:299-316 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 18 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (23 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (23 corresponding lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:61 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:61-98 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/server/ServerCommunication.swift:121-173 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 23 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (9 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (9 corresponding lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift:234 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift:234-243 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/RobotInfo/CheckBox.swift:245-253 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 9 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (11 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (11 corresponding lines) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:381 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:381-391 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:700-711 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 11 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (9 members, 50+ identical tokens) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:154 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:154-180 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:183-208 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:210-233 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:121-161 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:163-203 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:205-243 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:105-163 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:166-223 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:225-281 — These 9 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 9 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 9 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:91 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:91-191 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:109-247 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:108-248 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:69-140 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/RobotInfoFragment.java:47-96 — These 5 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 5 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 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (69 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (69 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:20 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:20-88 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:179-247 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:20` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (36–37 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (36–37 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:108 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:108-144 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:168-204 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:227-262 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:108` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (30–31 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:252 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:252-281 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:298-328 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:252` 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:105 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:105-128 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:141-166 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift:105` 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:250 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:250-272 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:394-416 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:413-435 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:250` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:427 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift:427-445 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift:428-446 — before extracting anything, compare `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/ExpandedAutoPilot.swift` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingSettings.swift` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 19 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 153 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 6) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:263 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:263-278 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:407-422 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:722-737 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:426-441 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:53-68 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/WebServer/ServerWebrtcDelegates.swift:163-179 — there are 6 copies across 5 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 6 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:263` 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15–17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15–17 lines × 2) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:48 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:48-62 | REDACTED:45-61 — 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 `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Authentication/Authentication.swift:48` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:356 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:356-365 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:831-839 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/runRobot/RunRobot.swift:863-871 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ObjectTracking/ObjectTrackingFragment.swift:356` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–8 lines × 9) · ×1

Duplicated block (4–8 lines × 9) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:161 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:161-164 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:190-193 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift:217-220 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:148-151 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:190-193 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV4.swift:229-232 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:146-153 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:206-213 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorFloatYoloV5.swift:264-271 — there are 9 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 9 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:236 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:236-243 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/DataCollectionController.swift:381-388 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/FreeRoam/FreeRoamController.swift:700-706 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Autopilot/AutopilotFragment.swift:236` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift:315 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift:315-321 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Profile/EditProfileFragment.swift:375-381 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Profile/ProfileFragment.swift:230-236 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Project/ProjectFragement.swift:428-434 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 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 4 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/ModelManagement/ModelManagementTable.swift:315` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–6 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (4–6 lines × 3) ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:376 — ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:376-381 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:399-402 | ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/Modes/VehicleControl.swift:97-102 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. 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, `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:381` calls `constraint` and `ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Controllers/DataCollection/ExpandSetting.swift:402` does not — after which the two agree again for 5 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/Flash.kt:25 — android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/Flash.kt:25-37 | android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/Flashlight.kt:27-39 | android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/LeftIndicator.kt:25-37 | android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/RightIndicator.kt:25-37 — before extracting anything, compare `android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/Flash.kt` and `android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/Flashlight.kt` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/ControllerActivity.kt:69 — android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/ControllerActivity.kt:69-74 | android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/ScreenSelector.kt:52-57 | android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/Button.kt:53-58 | android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/ConnectionActiveIndicator.kt:44-49 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 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 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (42 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (42 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:134 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:134-175 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:206-247 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:272-313 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:134` 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:178` calls `get`, `contentEquals` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:316` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (36–37 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (36–37 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:110 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:110-146 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:167-202 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:185 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:185-210 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/Detector.java:232-257 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

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

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/ConnectionMonitor.java:82 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/env/ConnectionMonitor.java:82-106 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/utils/ConnectionUtils.java:84-108 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–23 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (20–23 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:298 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:298-320 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:406-425 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:541-563 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:298` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/main/SettingsFragment.java:191 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/main/SettingsFragment.java:191-210 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/main/SettingsFragment.java:212-232 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 5) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:142 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:142-159 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:225-241 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:198-214 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:123-139 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/RobotInfoFragment.java:61-78 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:578 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:578-595 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:610-627 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:653-670 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:271-288 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. 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. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `driveMode` to `Enums.DriveMode` in one and `DriveMode` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:534 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:534-550 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:566-582 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:609-625 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:225-241 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 145 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:534` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `speedMode` to `Enums.SpeedMode` in one and `SpeedMode` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:213 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:213-227 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:275-290 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:213` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:468 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:468-480 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:510-522 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:670-682 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/googleServices/GoogleServices.java:468` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BarCodeScannerFragment.java:91 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BarCodeScannerFragment.java:91-103 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BarCodeScannerFragment.java:120-131 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BarCodeScannerFragment.java:91` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:310 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:310-319 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:367-376 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:415-424 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:553-562 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:310` 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, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:308` calls `post` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/projects/BlocklyExecutingFragment.java:366` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 2) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:504 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:504-510 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java:576-581 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/objectNav/ObjectNavFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 25 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/autopilot/AutopilotFragment.java:504` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (3–7 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (3–7 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:126 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:126-132 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:203-205 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:264-270 — 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 `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:126` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 6) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:123 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:123-127 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:165-169 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:201-205 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:172-176 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:244-248 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV5.java:310-314 — there are 6 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 6 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:123` 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 after the matched lines, `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:129` calls `get`, `contentEquals` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/tflite/DetectorYoloV4.java:207` 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:143 — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:143-147 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java:80-84 | android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/RobotInfoFragment.java:55-59 — before extracting anything, compare `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java` and `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 110 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:143` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–10 lines × 2) policy/openbot/train.py:261 — policy/openbot/train.py:261-270 | policy/openbot/train.py:358-364 — 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 `policy/openbot/train.py:261` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6–8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (6–8 lines × 3) policy/openbot/train.py:501 — policy/openbot/train.py:501-506 | policy/openbot/train.py:521-528 | policy/openbot/train.py:531-536 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19–20 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (19–20 lines × 4) controller/flutter/lib/screens/component/onScreenIcon.dart:200 — controller/flutter/lib/screens/component/onScreenIcon.dart:200-219 | controller/flutter/lib/screens/component/onScreenIcon.dart:228-246 | controller/flutter/lib/screens/tiltingPhoneMode.dart:134-153 | controller/flutter/lib/screens/tiltingPhoneMode.dart:162-181 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) REDACTED:78 — REDACTED:78-91 | REDACTED:131-144 | REDACTED:169-182 — 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.

M1 · Documentation (README) · README may be stale · ×1

README may be stale — 208 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No deployment automation · ×1

No deployment automation — No release automation was found in CI — neither a deploy stage (Helm/Kubernetes/compose manifests, an orchestrated rollout) nor a publish job that ships the built artifact. Releases appear to be run by hand, which is slower, less repeatable and harder to reverse.

R1 · Type Safety · Type Safety · ×1

Type Safety — 27 typed · 80 plain JS — the untyped files are controller/node-js/client/bot-message-handler.js, controller/node-js/client/buttons.js, controller/node-js/client/connection.js, controller/node-js/client/error-display.js, controller/node-js/client/index.js, controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js (+74 more).

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplication concentrated across 5 sibling directories (8 clone groups) · ×1

Duplication concentrated across 5 sibling directories (8 clone groups) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:177 — 8 duplicated blocks under open-code/src/components/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories bottomBar, drawer, editor, homeComponents, navBar — 5 of them are reported below, and 3 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 8 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 8 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 8 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplication concentrated across 2 sibling directories (7 clone groups) · ×1

Duplication concentrated across 2 sibling directories (7 clone groups) controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js:23 — 7 duplicated blocks under controller/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories node-js, web-server — 6 of them are reported below, and 1 is counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 7 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 7 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 7 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (239 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (239 matched lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/blockly/generator/javascriptGenerator.js:53 — open-code/src/components/blockly/generator/javascriptGenerator.js:53 · open-code/src/components/blockly/generator/pythonGenerator.js:24 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 1517 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (63 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (63 lines × 2 locations) controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js:23 — controller/node-js/client/keyboard.js:23 · controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/keyboard.js:23 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (63 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (63 matched lines × 2 locations) controller/node-js/server/remote-keyboard.js:25 — controller/node-js/server/remote-keyboard.js:25 · controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/remote_keyboard.js:20 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 291 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Wholesale file copy (51 identical lines × 2 files) · ×1

Wholesale file copy (51 identical lines × 2 files) controller/node-js/server/commands.js:11 — controller/node-js/server/commands.js:11 · controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/commands.js:11 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 51 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (46 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (46 matched lines × 2 locations) policy/frontend/src/modals/DatasetModal.tsx:20 — policy/frontend/src/modals/DatasetModal.tsx:20 · policy/frontend/src/modals/PublishModal.tsx:31 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 338 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (36 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (36 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/utils/constants.js:23 — open-code/src/utils/constants.js:23 · open-code/src/utils/constants.js:64 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (35 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (35 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:164 — open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:164 · open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:203 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (32 lines × 4 locations) open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:359 — open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:359 · open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:393 · open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:427 · open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/customblocks.js:461 — all 4 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (31 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (31 matched lines × 2 locations) controller/node-js/client/buttons.js:10 — controller/node-js/client/buttons.js:10 · controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/buttons.js:10 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 209 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (26 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (26 matched lines × 2 locations) controller/node-js/client/bot-message-handler.js:14 — controller/node-js/client/bot-message-handler.js:14 · controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/bot-message-handler.js:14 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 123 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (25 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (25 matched lines × 2 locations) controller/node-js/client/webrtc.js:24 — controller/node-js/client/webrtc.js:24 · controller/web-server/client/webRTC/webrtc.js:19 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 130 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/services/googleDrive.js:358 — open-code/src/services/googleDrive.js:358 · open-code/src/services/googleDrive.js:386 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:177 — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:177 · open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/editProfileModal.js:176 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/generalBlocks.js:33 — open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/generalBlocks.js:33 · open-code/src/components/blockly/toolbox/Toolbox.js:57 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js:164 — open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js:164 · open-code/src/components/inputComponent/simpleInputComponent.js:183 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/blockly/toolbox/Toolbox.js:37 — open-code/src/components/blockly/toolbox/Toolbox.js:37 · open-code/src/components/blockly/toolbox/Toolbox.js:62 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (14 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (14 matched lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/headerComponents.js:265 — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/headerComponents.js:265 · open-code/src/components/navBar/header.js:75 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 81 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:42 — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/modelUploadingComponent.js:42 · open-code/src/components/navBar/header.js:101 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (13 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (13 matched lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/headerComponents.js:265 — open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/headerComponents.js:265 · open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/profileOptionModal.js:58 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 80 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:403 — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:403 · open-code/src/components/editor/codeEditor.js:32 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) open-code/src/components/blockly/index.js:27 — open-code/src/components/blockly/index.js:27 · open-code/src/components/blockly/index.js:39 · open-code/src/components/blockly/index.js:51 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) policy/frontend/src/pages/HomePage.tsx:12 — policy/frontend/src/pages/HomePage.tsx:12 · policy/frontend/src/pages/HomePage.tsx:21 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) policy/frontend/src/pages/ModelsPage.tsx:79 — policy/frontend/src/pages/ModelsPage.tsx:79 · policy/frontend/src/pages/TrainPage.tsx:62 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3 locations) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:459 — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:459 · open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:469 · open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:480 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:510 — open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:510 · open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:515 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R11 · Import Boundaries · Boundary violation [package · ×1

Boundary violation [package:test-cross-package-internals] controller/node-js/test/commands.test.js:12 — controller/node-js/test/commands.test.js:12 reaches past another workspace package's public entry into its internals with a relative path (../server/commands.js) — the test is coupled to a file layout that package makes no promise about, so a refactor behind its entry point breaks the suite. Import the package by name instead.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function processKey (cyclomatic 39, cognitive 65) · ×1

Complex function processKey (cyclomatic 39, cognitive 65) controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/remote_keyboard.js:19 — processKey has cyclomatic complexity 39 and cognitive complexity 65; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function processKey (cyclomatic 29, cognitive 35) · ×1

Complex function processKey (cyclomatic 29, cognitive 35) controller/node-js/server/remote-keyboard.js:24 — processKey has cyclomatic complexity 29 and cognitive complexity 35; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function RightDrawer (cyclomatic 26, cognitive 25) · ×1

Complex function RightDrawer (cyclomatic 26, cognitive 25) open-code/src/components/drawer/drawer.js:22 — RightDrawer has cyclomatic complexity 26 and cognitive complexity 25; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function ProfileOptionModal (cyclomatic 26, cognitive 16) · ×1

Complex function ProfileOptionModal (cyclomatic 26, cognitive 16) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/profileOptionModal.js:22 — ProfileOptionModal has cyclomatic complexity 26 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function generateCode (cyclomatic 21, cognitive 49) · ×1

Complex function generateCode (cyclomatic 21, cognitive 49) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:96 — generateCode has cyclomatic complexity 21 and cognitive complexity 49; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function UploadCodeButton (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 15) · ×1

Complex function UploadCodeButton (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 15) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:368 — UploadCodeButton has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 15; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function Card (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) · ×1

Complex function Card (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/myProjects/card.js:30 — Card has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function EditProfileModal (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 10) · ×1

Complex function EditProfileModal (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 10) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/header/editProfileModal.js:22 — EditProfileModal has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function RightSection (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 6) · ×1

Complex function RightSection (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 6) open-code/src/components/navBar/header.js:206 — RightSection has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 6; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function handle (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 14) · ×1

Complex function handle (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 14) controller/web-server/client/keyboardHandlers/bot-message-handler.js:19 — handle has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function BottomBar (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 11) · ×1

Complex function BottomBar (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 11) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:30 — BottomBar has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function CarousalComponent (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 8) · ×1

Complex function CarousalComponent (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 8) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/carousel/carousel.js:33 — CarousalComponent has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 8; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function clickedButton (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 11) · ×1

Complex function clickedButton (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 11) open-code/src/components/bottomBar/bottomBar.js:215 — clickedButton has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function CreateNewProjectModal (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) · ×1

Complex function CreateNewProjectModal (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) open-code/src/components/homeComponents/myProjects/newProjectButton.js:117 — CreateNewProjectModal has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R6 · Tooling · No typecheck script · ×1

No typecheck script — test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'cookie-parser' · ×1

Unused dependency 'cookie-parser' — Declared in controller/node-js/server/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'debug' · ×1

Unused dependency 'debug' — Declared in controller/node-js/server/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'ejs' · ×1

Unused dependency 'ejs' — Declared in controller/node-js/server/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · Third-party script without Subresource Integrity · ×1

Third-party script without Subresource Integrity controller/web-server/client/index.html:14 — `https://accounts.google.com/gsi/client` is executed by this page with no Subresource Integrity. Whoever can answer that request — the CDN, anyone who compromises it, anyone on the network path — runs arbitrary script in this page's origin, with its session. The URL also names no version, so it resolves to whatever that origin serves at fetch time — the executed bytes can change with nobody touching this repository.

Minor — 32 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×8

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×2

Documentation: no contributor guidance README.md — The README has no contribution guidance for contributors. Add a Contribute section describing pull request/issue process and how to get involved.
Documentation: no project overview controller/web-server/README.md — The document is a README for the web server directory but does not describe what the OpenBot web controller project does or its main features. Add an overview paragraph stating that it provides a cloud-based web interface to control and monitor the robot remotely.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'default' · ×2

Unused export 'default' open-code/src/components/blockly/fields/DateField.jsx:39 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
Unused export 'default' open-code/src/services/firebase.js:39 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×2

Duplicated predicate android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:144 — `connectionType != null && connectionType.equals("Bluetooth")` appears character-identically in 3 files — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java, android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java, android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/RobotInfoFragment.java. 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 android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java:141 — `connectionType != null && connectionType.equals("USB")` appears character-identically in 3 files — android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/logging/LoggerFragment.java, android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/FreeRoamFragment.java, android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/robot/RobotInfoFragment.java. 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.

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

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 1 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/PointGoalNavigationFragment.java. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

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

REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1

Further orphaned files (smaller) — 79 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than raised one row each — most significant first: ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/Utils/extensions/CVPixelBuffer.swift, android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/pointGoalNavigation/ArCore.java, REDACTED, ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/Detector.swift, android/controller/src/main/java/org/openbot/controller/customComponents/VideoViewWebRTC.kt, controller/flutter/lib/screens/controller.dart, ios/OpenBot/OpenBot/tflite/DetectorDefault.swift, android/robot/src/main/java/org/openbot/app/robot/main/MainActivity.java (and 71 more) (82 orphaned of 170 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 170 of the 356 production source files in this repository met that bar). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 1/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `controller/flutter`, `controller/flutter/ios`, `controller/node-js/server`, `controller/python`, `ios/OpenBot`.

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

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 14245 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'FirebaseStorage' · ×1

Unused export 'FirebaseStorage' controller/web-server/client/firebase/authentication.js:21 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'conditionalLoops' · ×1

Unused export 'conditionalLoops' open-code/src/components/blockly/blocks/generalBlocks.js:31 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'handleUserRestriction' · ×1

Unused export 'handleUserRestriction' open-code/src/services/workspace.js:416 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'buttonColor' · ×1

Unused export 'buttonColor' open-code/src/utils/color.js:15 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Test-only dependency '@testing-library/react' in production deps · ×1

Test-only dependency '@testing-library/react' in production deps policy/frontend/src/App.test.js:1 — Only test files import it — move it to devDependencies.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-912189d3df5342af90490c89ebc97543/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-912189d3df5342af90490c89ebc97543/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	60	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	89	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/gdpr.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	2	artifacts/raw/semgrep-gdpr.json
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a0f448-b842-7853-b907-aa49a3958480 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Ob-F/OpenBot

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 67% · Adequate · gated by R1 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 68% · Adequate · gated by D6, R9 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 70% · Strong ·

At a glance — Readiness · 21% · Weak · gated by D10, R4, R8, P3, P4, P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 68% · Adequate · gated by D29, D30, D36 ·

At a glance — Accessibility · 32% · Weak · gated by AC1, AC2, AC4 ·

At a glance — Performance · 82% · Strong ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts